#i mean this isnt really a meta its just a critique from a position of critical race and feminist affect theories

[cheesebearger]

agatha all along had a really tight, well-constructed narrative until episodes 8 and 9. i actually think the conclusion episodes undermine what was working so well at the beginning. my main points:

Alice should not have died to, as Jac Schaeffer said, "punish" Agatha; having a woman of color die to "punish" a white woman flattens her character into an object designed to inflict white pain;

the revelation regarding who bound Jen's power reduces her trauma to a joke and disregards how interesting her having been "bound" by trauma rather than magic would have been;

Agatha's backstory fails to engage with the "why" motivating her serial killing or with her emotionally negligent and abusive parenting irt Nicky and the reveal that she can control her powers is significantly less interesting than if she cannot;

and Billy being revealed as responsible for the road and the trials fundamentally changes the significance of every moment of the show - to the point where you have multiple women dying for what is, literally, no reason due to his actions.

To preface: I never expect anything well written from the MCU or Disney, but about 65% of this show was surprisingly well-written. However, like with most Marvel franchises or TV shows, they just ruin it with their last moments by shoehorning in something, or having a very choppy constantly shifting emotional tone for the conclusion. I'm just glad that the show didn't end with a huge CGI battle sequences like Moon Knight and WandaVision did as they are the definition of a cop out for story telling.

As to point one: Alice's story was left unfinished. Multiple characters mention they made no effort to save her. Agatha is revealed to have complete control over her power, too. So ultimately, Alice dies for nothing. To "punish" Agatha, but that flattens her into an object, a weapon, directed at Agatha. She's no longer a person, she's merely a tool being wielded by the writer literally, and narratively by Billy and Agatha. Rio's words to Alice additionally make no sense - she tells Alice that she's a "protection witch who died protecting someone," but she didn't. She began to protect Agatha, and then Agatha consciously made the decision to kill her (as we know she has complete control over her power). Alice is murdered. She doesn't die heroically protecting someone. She dies for no reason, and dies with her story unfinished and unfulfilled. Is that how life goes sometime? Yeah, obviously. But this is a story, where the writer made a conscious decision to kill off a woman of color to "punish" her white main character. Alice fully deserved a complete character arc and the fact she did not have one is due to racist objectification of her.

Point two: Jen's power should have been revealed to be internally suppressed rather than bound by Agatha. Firstly, because making Agatha responsible makes the entire thing a joke - Agatha is flippant, she doesn't even remember necessarily how it happened, it completely undermines her "I left you alone..." comment to Jen. Secondly, the show introduces Chekov's Racist in episode 3 and, as a result of the reveal regarding Agatha, his existence in the story fails to have any significance. In fact, it reads as Jen simply being too blind or too foolish to "understand" who took her power from her. It robs her of the weight of her trauma at the hands of a violent racist and completely reduces the depth and affect of the trauma from racism that Jen experiences. Rather than having her cope with and come to terms with the reality of the trauma she experienced at the hands of the unnamed doctor, her entire story comes to be one of a woman "foolishly" misinterpreting her own life and lived experiences. It also would have been more interesting if Agatha had, genuinely, left Jen alone out of respect for her midwifery; that allows both characters to exist within the complexities of their own traumas without sacrificing one's pain for the other.

Point three: Agatha's backstory was rather limp. I think it could be immediately improved if a single line of dialogue was added, from Rio to Agatha. If, when Agatha asked what Rio would want to allow her to keep Nicky, Rio had responded, "I'll give you as much time as you give me bodies." From there, it would be easy to see why the loss of her son would drive her to engage in that ritual serial killing even more out of grief and out of resentment for being so alienated from her community. Personally, though, I think the backstory we needed was actually Agatha in Salem, being put on trial. Though I do think it's interesting to have Agatha make her son bait for her victims, thus making him an accomplice in her murders, and doing so using a song he wrote with his mother out of love; I just wish it was presented as how disturbing it all actually is - the episode itself never quite gets the emotional tenor it needs, it needed to empathize with Nicky as a child who is absolutely being emotionally neglected and abused, existing with the knowledge that he must help his mother murder.

And point four: Billy being revealed to be the creator of the road immediately destabilizes and reduces the show's stakes. I suppose I should lump in here the fact the road is a con by Agatha as part and parcel of this issue. I feel like the show kind of shied away from committing to the idea of the Witches Road - a really cool concept that, if well executed, could have been the stage for a great story from start to finish. By having Billy create the Road, we actually have Lilia's entire life become centered around him - the time loop she is trapped in, across her entire lifetime, is because of him. Not because of her, not for her, not for her growth, not for her coven. She dies for Billy. She dies for nothing. And sure, everyone ultimately dies for "nothing" if we want to get nitpicky. But how sad is it, for Lilia to be trapped dying in Billy's mind-road, for her entire life. Everything she is, flattened into a mere device for Billy's pain and growth. Way to completely ruin an incredible episode of TV by adding additional context lmfao.

Ultimately, I think the show is fine. Just fine. It could have been much better, which frustrates me. My assumption of what the show was going to be was this: the Witches Road exists as a journey wherein one must overcome their fear of death and strengthen the bonds of the coven to ward off social death, and to ultimately experience a form of "death" at the end of the road wherein the coven would be reunited, fundamentally changed as a result of their journeys. I thought that the meaning appended to "Death" in the show was going to align with the meaning of the tarot (upright: spiritual transformation, new beginnings, letting go, endings, sudden upheaval, etc.; reversed: inability to move forward, fear of beginnings, etc.) given they went through so much effort to put together the "correct" tarot spread. I'd also note that the "What's Missing" was community - so having the ending of the season be most of the coven permanently dead leaves that "What's Missing" still unfulfilled.

[eviclair]

I don’t know if I’ve ever heard of your actual thoughts(tm) on khr, so what’s your constructive review on the series as a whole? Like some positives and negatives w/ the writing, characters, etc. If u don’t feel like answering, feel free to ignore this LOL.

 tl;dr because this is 800 words of nonsense. i think you should know i would not know a constructive review if it bit me in the ass.

my guy i have not done a full read of khr in maybe two years and i know that does not sound like a long time but i have the long-term memory of a fruit fly. please bear with me. luckily for both of us i liveblogged the last time i read so i at least have my own sparknotes jdflaksjddaf

first off! khr is a satire manga!!! i cannot stress this enough, i can and will fight you to the death about this!!! “oh but it gets serious later” it grows a PLOT, thats not the same thing. khr is stupid as hell and that is both on purpose and my favorite thing about it.

i fucking love shonen man!!! its all about FIGHTING and LOVING YOUR FRIENDS and HAVING EMOTIONS and. bro im a water sign. my mars is in gemini, there is nothing i can do about this, god made me and said “get that bitch some found family and also some incredible violence” and we all just have to live with that. 

khr is so much all of those things that i did not realize they were being made fun of until very long after the fact so my current opinions are very much not the ones i started with jaldkhjdfhd but man. once i clued in i both loved it so much more and became 100% incapable of interacting with fandom in any meaningful way L M A O

i just. the main conceit is that theyve weaponized the deus ex machina eleventh-hour shonen power up. the “my dead family came back to life to kill me” trope is used three separate times. the big bad student body president is a delinquent. theres an entire subset of above magic god powers thatre just

the tyl bazooka was just ripping on the Timeskip Arc until the Timeskip Arc actually happened?? like fuuta’s special thing is that he can communicate with the Meta Planet to divine Character Rankings, i dont know what to tell you!!! the truth is out there!!! 

like DO YOU EVEN REMEMBER that time tsuna experienced a villain’s flashback sequence FOR HIM because i fucking do, i think about it every day,

so in the sense of “please critique the writing”, i cant do that because im pretty sure 98% of all the tropey bullshit is by design. do i wish people like the kokuyo gang got more characterization outside of being ride-or-die villain sidekicks?? of course i do but thats my own damn fault for seeing cool side characters and losing all higher brain function. on the other hand, hibari being the person he is and having absolutely no backstory or motivation beyond “get out of my school” is really fucking funny and keeps me warm at night, so. win some, lose some.

(the 2% of the writing that isnt tropey bullshit that i CAN critique is whatever is happening with kyoko. Bad Female Cast is definitely a shonen trope but its a shitty one and i want it to die. within maybe four minutes of kyoko being introduced she tries to body a man and then thats just never spoken about again?? wheres that energy queen?!!! let kyoko say fuck!!!!)

((this applies to haru too in the sense that all she really does is make moon eyes at tsuna but the way in which she does so is honestly so fucking funny and unhinged that it comes back around to being great. like yeah yep yes ma’am thats 100% bonafide Girl Who Throws Skittles In A Puddle And Calls It Potion right there please may i have another))

If khr took itself even 4% more seriously it could be really deep and compelling and i think that frustrates a lot of people, but i think i like it better this way?? half the fun for me is reading in between the lines!! the subtext, however unintentional it may be!!

examples: yamamoto is one of my favorites just because theres SO FUCKING MUCH to unpack about him!! canon gives us a lot of information about him just by virtue of the fact that he’s a Main Character, but paradoxically he himself is never really the focus. he just Does Shit and you have to figure out why on your own and i LOVE DOING THAT.

i dont love mukuro because he’s a fleshed out and nuanced villain, i love him because he says shit like “i went to hell six times” and never expounds upon that or “i can definitely trust the information i got from this magic monocle called Demon Spade’s Super Evil Murder Eye or whatever the fuck” and then expresses surprise when daemon spade is an asshole. he goes and willfully fucks up the only job anyones ever given him (impersonate 80 year old leonardo lippi) because he Just Has to shapeshift into a young hot dude and hand deliver byakuran, the boss of the Flower Family, the Family that names all its members after Flowers, a bouquet that means “i am in disguise ;) cant catch me bitch ;)”

like WHAT THE FUCK!!

i dont know man. i just like puzzles and khr is a gift that keeps giving.

(sidenote that should’ve maybe just been the subject of the post but re:i cant shut the fuck up about anything ever, i love tsuna so much. so much. his personality!! his relationships!!! his growth!!! his growth!!!!! his growth!!!!!!! khr has its claws in me because i see tsuna do something cool or brave or even deeply stupid actually and my whole heart goes AAAAAAAAA bc thats him!!! thats my son!!!!! my baby boy whom ive raised since birth!!!!!! suit me up and call me a reborn kinnie, fuck!!!!!!!!!)

[dramazones]

Oh Wow! Im finally here with a headcanon birth chart and analysis for jamie!

i'm on mobile so I cant even put this long ass post under a read more i am so fucking sowwy but anyways a lot of this was inspired from dewmie-in 's meta posts and also i rlly love astrology so pls follow them first of all or else ur a fake fan shhfhgjsjkfkd

☀️ ♓︎ Pisces Sun ♓︎ ☀️

There is no doubt that Jamie is a pisces sun. Some of the well known characteristics of a piscean are being the artistic ones, the ones more in touch with their emotions and the absolute dreamers of the zodiac, I can assure you this as a mercury and moon piscean!

And it’s quite obvious that these traits 100% match up to jamie’s surface character being a big theater nerd, writer, poet, and as an actor, he HAS to understand emotion in all its forms! While being the more compassionate of signs, that also comes with sympathy, and maybe even empathy.

to which he expresses when he tells steven that a good story with a quality protagonist HAS to include said protagonists struggles as well, now this might be a reach but perhaps this was self projecting after his own struggles in kansas, maybe even foreshadowing ooOoOh

(“a real hero must struggle” jamie struggles living in kansas, moves back to beach city, nails his first production and gains management position @ the theater, aka his heroic ending i guess idk, then more theater related accomplishments as mentioned in letters to lars ofc)

☽♎︎ Libra Moon ♎︎☽

One of the biggest desires for any libra placement is balance, And the moon sign being the emotion sign, Libra moons desire an emotional balance as much as they do in their environment. Libra Moons can also be known as a “people person” while typically depending on the study of others to lean their own nature.

Jamie fits the Libra moon description being a sort of people person himself. Though he’s capable of keeping a friendly conversation with just about anyone, There’s also no doubt that this guy has severe anxiety that affects his communication with others along with his emotional stability (even affecting him physically). The thing is that he’s managed to keep the anxiety and his social skills much more balanced the more we see him or i guess as time passes, not one of them overpowering the other. (see venus in scorpio as to why he limits himself socially as much as he would his anxiety)

While he desires emotional balance that also comes with a feeling of frustration and defeat when things are even slightly out of balance (also a symptom of anxiety ; easily irritated/defeated) such as his improv performance in letters to lars, ending his performance within a minute after feeling overwhelmed as it started going south.

So while there are several moments of him maintaining an emotional balance he also has another side of the scale that’s less balanced (astrology word play lmao) such as a general lifestyle balance, also nonexistent for jamie (even though your lifestyle heavily affects your behavior) in a sense that he lacks of a healthy sleep schedule being a mailman AND an actor, one occurring from the early morning to the afternoon and the other job occurring at night. Probably irrelevent but its MY sleepover and Ill add as much necessary info in this birth chart reading as i please.

Im also including buddys book as an example because though it was only jamie being the faceclaim for buddy theres no denying that since historical friction theres at least some parallels between the two characters sharing the same traits (being writers, returning to beach city to prosper in their careers, being absolute drama kings)

♀️♏︎ Scorpio Venus ♏︎♀️

One of the biggest aspects to Jamie’s character INCLUDES being an absolute sucker for romance so lets get this bread and talk abt his relationships w/ everyone and his views on love uwu

Scorpio being a water sign means healing is one of the largest aspects to the sign. Healing nonetheless comes with a relation to trauma being from the planet representing death itself. Life and Death go hand in hand to define each other, ya feel me.

while were on the topic of death lets bring back the parallelism between jamie and buddy thats been around since historical friction. in the play buddy is presumed dead up until william reaches beach city. ok. so hear me out. perhaps that was foreshadowing for jamie’s traumatic near death encounter with topaz and aqua. remember how I said the water element represents healing as well as trauma??? It all kinda ties in yall...

ANYWAYS It’s safe to say that Jamie is a person that’s been through his rock bottom AND trauma already (his death if you will), struggling to live a happy, or even regular (lets face it as far as we know the only thing he came back to beach city with was sunglasses, bitch was broke) life in kansas, the abduction, its not something you can heal from overnight. While he does show symptoms of severe anxiety (to say the very least) even after the abduction he’s also grown closer to working on healing, moving on from his overwhelming fear of rejection by prospering in theater (him coming back to life if u will), and as for anything directly related to the abduction is unknown, but its very likely he’s working on moving on from that on his own as far as we know!!

which brings up the next trait of a scorpion venusian! They prefer to be a mystery in order to protect themselves as a result of fear of getting hurt for trusting/opening up too much. The first time we see jamie since the abduction is during the re-election in dewey wins, where he doesn’t seem affected at all. Yes, Jamie is a pretty open book for the most part (see dewmie-in’s analogy to in/out of the closet in historical friction) however theres also moments where he limits himself, or perhaps another side to himself, a far more passionate side…

Holding back tears during his drama zone and waiting until hes alone to be excited abt delivering his letter in love letters, playing it cool when earning theater director position in historical friction, not to mention his room SHOULD play a very huge role in his secretive side. (see brodingle’s post on jamie’s room, his casual side vs his passionate side)

the venus in scorpio (or any scorpio placement rlly) also remains a secret not truly by choice, but theyre also studying others of interest. being an actor, Jamie should know a thing or two on body language and raw emotion as he sees it.

And finally, The venus is scorpio is a devoted, passionate, and emotionally attached lover. in love letters he falls for someone easily, and even if he learned in the end love at first sight isnt real he is most definitely the type to fall easily based on emotional connection alone! Also, his fear of rejection can easily play into his love life as well. Being in kansas getting constantly rejected and returning back home out of not just defeat but most likely homesickness as well. He missed his stable job. he wants stability, loyalty, commitment! yeah ok thts all i got for now ladies!

♂️♍︎ Virgo Mars ♍︎♂️

Mars being the planet of impulsiveness, energy, initiation and “doing it” being born under the sign of doing it efficiently and orderly gives a handful of traits that completely match up to Jamie and the way he puts out his energy into the world

Jamie has been the type to not just instantly put his energy into something new, but he’s also put his energy into mastering said thing! While Mars is the planet of impusiveness, Virgo is the sign of patience, the Virgo mars is a firm believer of practice makes perfect, and striving for overall perfect, which does in fact get overwhelming for Jamie the perfectionist.

In historical friction, though hesitant, he was not afraid to critique and analyze dewey’s writing skills. And although he was anxious again to go against deweys script and use pearls version instead, he went with pearls because he desperately needed to execute his first play flawlessly. this also occurs again in letters to lars, when his improv performance doesnt go as planned he doesnt just end it from there, in fact, he still has that sense of patience to critique his cast members on stage before getting completely irritated when they dont comply. imo its important to note this duality of patience and impulsiveness because this is an anxiety inducing combination that heavily matches up to Jamies energy.

it’s also important to bring Jamie’s room back in this, because while it was creepy as shit its also FILLED with books, and has really fancy stationery meaning he is in fact a writer. The Mars in Virgo is an attentive to detail oriented person, and being a writer, Jamie not only reads others’ works, he records his own with plenty of detail as seen in his love letter to garnet. Its in his nature by now to have an eye for detail as seen in his room, his costumes, his writing, etc.

Its very likely that his venus and his mars sign do sort of relate in a sense of the way he will present himself. The virgo mars wants a deep connection as the next person but refuses to express that “passionate side” as much as others, preferring to remain casual or present a “cool exterior” which plays into the venus in scorpio’s preference for a secretive side or to remain a mystery.

lets also not forget Jamie’s mime performance in Sadie’s Song. His body language easily read as excited and desperate for perfectionism. Theres no denying he spent time and energy into his act, probably studying mimes and all lol

plus the virgo mars being an attentive to detail type of person, scorpio venus’ silent study on their person of interest and libra moon’s dependance on the study of others to learn how to express emotion when and where and how all tie into each other. Jamie depends on detail before well, doing! he is the type to not just think before acting but hes also gotten quite anxious overthinking as well!

The Taurus Ascendant is a sucker for stability, loyalty, especially to their passions with change being their biggest weakness, very fitting to Jamie. Stability is what made Jamie return to beach city from Kansas because he was not used to such a drastic change in an unstable life, doing the absolute opposite of prospering in his acting career, another big desire for a taurus rising btw, they thrive for success!

They also need a sense of security and any chance at risking that security is a big no-no for the Taurus Ascendant. Jamie’s constant fear of rejection, his anxiety before a production that could make or break his career, he desires a sense of reassurance and security that will assure him that things will not turn out as horribly as his anxiety’s (cough drama zone cough) made it out to be.

⬆️♉︎ Taurus Rising ♉︎⬆️

now, in Reunited, hes completely moved on from garnet at this point. This takes places after the abduction, the only thing that would really be on his mind rn is healing and finding peace again with himself and in his surroundings. while hes handled this healing process alone (as far as we know) hes also learned about what he wants for himself including his love life. seeing garnet extremely happy and married and all makes him defeated for a moment not because ���uUuuUUhH shes the one that got away!” its because he truly desires a passionate and devoted relationship as ruby and sapphires! which brings up the next topic!

In relationships, the Taurus Ascendant won't easily break up with someone they gave their heart to. Jamie wants a partner thats going to be as devoted and passionate as himself. He needs that sense of commitment and loyalty from someone and probably wouldn’t handle something as emotionless as one night stands for example! Any taurus placement has the same desires for romance as scorpio placements to be quite honest here, im just sayin as a venus in taurus and scorpio rising lmao.

🌊 Water Dominant 🌊

Ok so the thing is heres the thing. Out of all four astrological elements, Jamie exudes water energy the most, then earth, then fire, and lastly air. He’s not just an emotional person, he’s also an optimistic person, even when he overthinks things, he continuously looks into the future rather than his past so I think its important to note he also has that “psychic” aspect to him as well as having a strong sense of someone else’s emotions as much as his own.

let me also add in dewmie-in’s post where they point out tht jamie does in fact have a literal reocurring theme with water so even if he turns out to like not be a water sun sign in canon (highly doubt there will ever be a canon bday for him lmao the entire point of this post tho) theres no way hes gonna not be associated with water coincidentally. so if u didnt read their post tldr: being a fucking buffoon in the literal rain, throwing letters into the ocean, staring at the ocean on his free time, (aka during working ours, worlds okayest mailman) cries easily, buddy dying in water, jamie nearly being killed as instructed by a gem named aqua, jamie surviving in water after being THROWN off the ship. (i added a few more btw hshfhhdjd)

so yeah thats that on that, theres plenty more planet placements than that in a birth chart but i just felt like doing the usual ones i guess :P

[transparentkingdom]

IAT

My friend and I got into a discussion about six months ago regarding the implicit bias tests put out by Harvard and their validity. He questioned their validity and had some articles to bolster his argument, and I disagreed with him. I thought folks might be interested in a few of my points. 

In response to this article - https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html

and this one - https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/12/05/psychologys-favourite-tool-for-measuring-implicit-bias-is-still-mired-in-controversy/

Here is what I said: 

“what's up man,

so i read the two iat articles you sent me and found them interesting - so cool to be in grad school and be exchanging ideas on all sorts of things. i did want to get back to you and say that i read those pieces and looked at several scientific articles too (mostly by john jost and collaborators who developed the iat, but also investigators not affiliated with them). i maintain my position from yesterday that the iat is rigorous and that its structural framework can get at implicit biases. further, i would argue that there is a lack of sound logical integrity as well as generally flawed reasoning in the critiques of the iat you sent me. i'd love to share some of these thoughts as well as some studies and meta-analyses (and brief thoughts on these too) that look at associations between implicit bias and behavioral outcomes. sorry about this long email and inconsistent punctuation haha, but here are some of my personal opinions.

addressing the article from the cut first: i admit that it looks like the developers of the iat exaggerated the predictive powers of the iat if they said that it can shed light on "unconscious endorsements" people make of certain groups. this article goes on to flesh out this position and discuss how it is familiarity with certain stereotypes rather than actual endorsements of these stereotypes that can cause, for example, activists to score as high on these tests as non-activists. here are some quotes i've bolded:

"

experimenters were able to easily induce what the IAT would interpret as “implicit bias” against Noffians simply by forming an association between them and downtroddenness in general."

and also "Andreychik and Gill found that for those students who endorsed external explanations for the plight of African-Americans or a novel group, or who were induced to do so, high IAT scores correlated with

greater

degrees of explicitly reported more compassion and empathy for those groups. For those who rejected, or were induced to reject, external explanations, the correlation was exactly reversed: High IAT scores predicted lower empathy and compassion. In other words, the IAT appeared to indicate very different things for people who did or didn’t accept external explanations for black people’s lower standing in society. This suggests that sometimes high IAT scores indicate that someone feels high degrees of empathy and compassion toward African-Americans, and believes that the group hasn’t been treated fairly. Now, it could be that such people

also

have high amounts of implicit bias, but it’s striking how easily IAT scores can be manipulated with interventions that don’t really have anything to do with implicit bias." "So the question of whether the IAT measures something that can be fairly called

animus

, in the sense of being a preference (in this case, an unconscious one) for one group over another, rather than familiarity with stereotypes, is

anything but

“ill-posed”. "

Blanton said that he has never seen a psychological instrument in which less statistical noise predictably biases the results upward or downward. “What should happen is that as you remove random noise, you just get a better estimate of [the thing being measured],” he explained. Blanton provided a surprising example of how this plays out in test sessions, according to his team’s math: If a race IAT test-taker is exactly 1 millisecond faster on each and every white/good as compared to black/bad trial, they “will get the most extreme label,” he said. That is, the test will tell them they are extremely implicitly biased despite their having exhibited almost zero bias in their actual performance. That’s an extreme example, of course, but Blanton says he’s confident this algorithmic quirk is “affecting real-world results,” and in the Assessment paper he and his colleagues published the results of a bunch of simulated IAT sessions which demonstrated as such."

"To be sure, there’s no perfect psychological instrument. They all have their flaws and shortcomings — sometimes maddening ones. But there may not be any instrument as popular and frequently used as the race IAT that is as riddled with uncertainty about what, exactly, it’s measuring, and with the sorts of methodological issues that in any other situations would cause an epidemic of arched eyebrows. “What I’ve been convinced of is it’s very difficult to break down the origins of these associations,” said Elizabeth Paluck, a prejudice and intergroup relations researcher at Princeton and a co-author on the “Noffians” study. “They can’t be all attributed to personal preference, they certainly come from cultural associations and conditioning.” As for the authors of the internal/external explanations paper, they note in it that “our analysis is perfectly compatible with the possibility that, perhaps for the majority of people, implicit negativity is likely to be prejudice-based.” But even if you accept that, it means for a substantial minority of people, the implicit negativity revealed by the IAT isn’t connected to prejudice — which is one reasonable way to interpret those underwhelming meta-analyses."

My contention with this part of the article is semantic in nature, because implicit bias IS familiarity and association between two things rather than any type of endorsement (e.g. if you grow up in the united states, even in the third millennium, you are likely to associate black people with violence and women with domestic life), which explains why openly hateful people and activists who spend a lot of time thinking about these associations might converge on the iat tests. It does not matter if your conscious or explicit biases are positive or how hard you work to fight your implicit biases (e.g. in the case of activists.) This article confuses explicit and implicit bias (probably in large part because the iat creators overestimated the predictive powers of the test as i mentioned and even made this semantic error themselves), but in reality, it is those implicit biases that predict how quickly a police officer will pull a trigger when startled by a black civilian who thrusts their hand in their pocket. explicit biases predict how well white people will get along with black people in intergroup settings because in those situations, you have time to reflect on your own prejudices (which the cut article even addresses and calls "overcompensating"). for more examples of quick reaction times in the context of implicit racial bias, i think blink by malcolm gladwell has a few good examples (though i'm guessing you've read it lol, and not that i am a huge lover of this book, because i'm not), as well as some of the articles i link in a few sentences. anecdotally (for what it's worth), i noticed in myself that after the BLM movement resurgence this summer, i was more likely to lunge in fear when addressed unsuspectingly by black homeless individuals in chicago (because i was implicitly associating black people with violence because of those two stimuli being juxtaposed on the news despite the fact that clearly the police officers were at fault and their black victims were totally innocent). also, i do not understand the article's hypothetical argument about how if a speedy test-taker is one millisecond faster on the white/good associations than on the black/bad ones, then they will get a score suggesting extremely high implicit bias against black people. if a freakshow statistical anomaly took place where the test-taker happened to be consistently but slightly slower on the black/bad bias responses but did not have that bias, then great, cool, but in all likelihood, the test would be measuring exactly what it purports to which is an unconscious negative feeling towards black people. yhis also relates to the article's discussion regarding how important explicit vs implicit bias is as a target of intervention and that the police situation at legal level in Ferguson is reflective of bias. Again, this has nothing to do with the validity of IAT - a rigorous study would look at correlations between implicit bias and implicit behavior, not explicit biases that can occur within the context of legal proceedings. The question that needs to be asked is whether the association between implicit bias and implicit behavior are rigorous and significant. Over and over again, we see that they are (links:

https://psyarxiv.com/582gh/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368430215596075

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-21198-003

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721418797309

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12401

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797617694866

). my favorite example of my point is from Horwitz and Davidio 2015 - in this article, the investigators found that implicit biases in a population sample in favor of rich folks predicts that this sample will grant more amnesty to rich folks than poor folks when the rich ones cause a car accident.  what creators purported to measure with it e.g. positive vs negative feelings toward certain groups is the mistake - does not mean the test is not a rigorous metric of implicit bias.

the other main argument the cut piece (and for that matter the research digest piece) makes regards the reliability and repeatability of the iat tests, showing low ~.4 relatedness coefficients. however, the article does not define the parameters used to assess reliability/measurement error in this context. For example, are we seeing totally random variance between test trials (e.g. is a test-taker gets extreme bias towards black people one week and extreme bias against black people the next? or is it more like slight bias one week and moderate bias the next? within the scheme of multiple trials across many individuals of course, and the average amount of shifting in scores averaged or statistically corrected for across many tests). in the latter case, low levels of reliability could reflect examinee's fear of being perceived as a racist upon second taking of the test leading to overthinking and anxiety, consciousness of possible biases that damn them towards unwanted prejudices, or "doctoring" how they take the test ie doing so in bad faith, for example moving more slowly on the white + good associations. Also, the iat test has been shown to be extremely reliable compared to other tests that measure the same type of thing (see Jost 2018, which is one of the articles linked above), e.g. blood pressure, a trait that is multifactorial (can be caused by anxiety, mood, diet, sleep) despite being stable over time (in the case of blood pressure, chronic cardiovascular health). Also, in studies that have truly found low correlation between implicit bias and implicit behaviors mentioned in the cut article, jost 2018 points out that this has to do with low methodological correspondence and the fact that these studies have rarely adjusted for measurement error.

The final part of the article talks about the harm of a potentially uninformative test like the iat making people feel unnecessarily bad about themselves and harming intergroup relations - both irrelevant to the validity of the iat by the way - though interestingly, the article points out the iat does have the power to do what it aims to (inform people of their unconscious associations - i find it rich that the article concedes this when it has sought to debunk it up to this point). some quotes: "

So there is nothing wrong with implicit-bias training that covers this sort of research. Nor is there anything wrong with IAT-based trainings which merely explain to people that they may well be carrying around certain associations in their head they are unaware of, and that researchers have uncovered patterns about who is more likely to demonstrate which response-time differences. In situations where one group holds historic or current-day power over the other, for example, members of the in-group do tend to score higher on the IAT than the out-group. Some of these between-group differences appear to be pretty robust, and they deserve further study. These are all worthwhile subjects to discuss, as long as it is made clear to test-takers that their scores do not predict their behavior." "

So it’s an open question, at least: The scientific truth is that we don’t know exactly how big a role implicit bias plays in reinforcing the racial hierarchy, relative to countless other factors. We do know that after almost 20 years and millions of dollars’ worth of IAT research, the test has a markedly unimpressive track record relative to the attention and acclaim it has garnered. Leading IAT researchers haven’t produced interventions that can reduce racism or blunt its impact. They haven’t told a clear, credible story of how implicit bias, as measured by the IAT, affects the real world. They have flip-flopped on important, baseline questions about what their test is or isn’t measuring. And because the IAT and the study of implicit bias have become so tightly coupled, the test’s weaknesses have caused collateral damage to public and academic understanding of the broader concept itself. As Mitchell and Tetlock argue in their book chapter, it is “difficult to find a psychological construct that is so popular yet so misunderstood and lacking in theoretical and practical payoff” as implicit bias. They make a strong case that this is in large part due to problems with the IAT.

Unless and until new research is published that can effectively address the countless issues with the implicit association test, it might be time for social psychologists interested in redressing racial inequality to reexamine their decision to devote so much time and energy to this one instrument. In the meantime, the field will continue to be hampered in its ability to provide meaningful answers to basic questions about how implicit bias impacts society, because answering those questions requires accurate tools. So, contra Banaji, scrutinizing the IAT and holding it to the same standards as any other psychological instrument isn’t a sign that someone doesn’t take racism seriously: It’s exactly the opposite." In this case, it is hard to know what these "standards" are. At this point, it seems like the author's main contention is that the IAT creators almost misinterpreted the mandate of their test, which again, I agree is true (they confused explicit and implicit bias and overstated the power of IAT results to predict explicit-bias based behavior). However, this article hardly discusses specific standards in light of which the IAT needs to be revamped or interpreted and to which any rigorous psychological testing battery should be subject.”

Here is an extra correction I made - “oh my point at the end of the second paragraph "what creators purported to measure with it e.g. positive vs negative feelings toward certain groups is the mistake - does not mean the test is not a rigorous metric of implicit bias" refers to the iat itself, not to the horwitz and davidio article.”