The tests are interesting in concept, but I found the execution to be kinda clunky. I took the religion bias and disability bias tests. Because those tests both involved sorting objects that varied in both color (green, blue and black) and type (text and iconography), I didn't feel I was fulfilling the intentions of the test. My instinct was to sort the items by those aesthetic categories rather than the words or cultural connotations the items represented. I don't feel the tests accurately represent my biases as a test that was only images or only black text would. In addition, the disability test used crosswalk signs as a graphical representation of able-bodied people, which created an additional mental hurdle of conflating a preexisting definition (sign = watch for people crossing) with a new definition (person walking = able bodied)*.
The article is a good resource for people who have just been introduced to the concept that they might be prejudiced, but I think it would benefit from a few links to other articles on how to work on unlearning biases rather than just identifying and acknowledging them. It is also very focused on children even though the test is geared towards an older audience.
*something something cultural assumptions of ability something something signs problematic something something take it up with the DOT
The article is a good resource for people who have just been introduced to the concept that they might be prejudiced, but I think it would benefit from a few links to other articles on how to work on unlearning biases rather than just identifying and acknowledging them. It is also very focused on children even though the test is geared towards an older audience.
*something something cultural assumptions of ability something something signs problematic something something take it up with the DOT
Comments
Post a Comment