Wednesday, May 02, 2012

Thoughts, Motives, and Intentions

By Sherry Colb

In my Verdict column for this week, I discuss the necessary tension that pervades the relationship between our First Amendment freedom of speech and thought, on one hand, and the way in which we define and prove criminal conduct, on the other.  It would in fact be quite difficult to imagine a criminal justice system that classified a defendant's state of mind as legally irrelevant.

In this post, I want to suggest that there is a profound distinction between our thoughts that we simply think or express in words and the motives and intentions that drive our behavior.  That is, I would argue that the sort of thought that floats around in our heads is qualitatively a distinct phenomenon from the sort of thought that impels us to act.  Intentions and motives, on this approach, are more than simply "thought plus action."

In considering this idea, I find myself thinking about the Harvard Implicit Association Test (I.A.T.) a test that anyone can take here and that will purportedly expose that person's true beliefs regarding race, sex, and other characteristics.  The test is elegant in its simplicity.  It asks the test-taker, by turns, to associate stereotype-consistent and stereotype-defying ideas and calculates whether he or she takes longer to draw the stereotype-defying associations.  If you have have an easier time pairing a female item with a passive and home-oriented item, for example, than with an assertive and powerful item, then you may be harboring sexist biases.

I took the test a number of years ago and was delighted to learn that I do not harbor negative racial associations.  But then I thought about how peculiar it was for me to imagine that an implicit association test, if I had scored differently on it, would have been able to say something significant about my belief system.  It would undoubtedly be interesting to know whether I have an easier time associating stereotype-conforming pairs than stereotype-defying pairs.  But the notion that a test-taker might actually "turn out" to be a racist or a sexist by virtue of how speedily he or she could draw associations strikes me as wrong and perhaps even pernicious.

Why pernicious?  To be a racist, in my view, is to behave in a fashion that inflicts or attempts to inflict harm on others on account of race.  To identify destructive stereotypes through an I.A.T. is most useful, it seems to me, in showing that such stereotypes pervade our society and will therefore likely infect interactions between people.  A society, in other words, can offer a hostile environment for people in a racial or ethnic minority even if the individuals within that society are not themselves racist.  I do not think that we gain anything, however, from informing particular individuals that they either do or do not harbor racial or sexual biases, based on their performance on the I.A.T.

What does any of this have to do with thought versus intentions and motives?  Thoughts are the sorts of phenomena that show up on a measure like the I.A.T.  They are unconscious associations that pervade our culture and have harmful effects both on the self-perception of the people whom they stereotype and on the interactions between members of the privileged minority or majority and members of historically oppressed groups.  Intentions and motives, on the other hand, drive individual people to do things that help or harm others.  They can, accordingly, evidence individual culpability.

If we want people to treat each other in a more enlightened fashion, I think that we ought to be focusing on encouraging people to examine and become mindful of their intentions and motivations when they act, rather than on their implicit associations. As in the First Amendment context, when it comes to free-floating ideas that people have, policy-makers might do best to avoid trying to shame people for those or otherwise regulate them.

I have no more  reason to feel complacent or proud about having "passed" the I.A.T. than a peer has to feel guilty for having "failed" it.  We ought to judge people's goodness by what they do and attempt to do, because actions rather than free-floating thoughts reflect the mental processes with the greatest potential for causing harm and, alternatively, transforming our world for the good.

4 comments:

Paul Scott said...

So, the I.A.T. was interesting, but...

I took the Gender(and they really mean sex, not gender) Science one.

I took it twice.

The first time through, it was Male right, Female left. Then Science right, LA left. Then they did some mixing, then they did the double switch, so that Science and Female were on the same side.

That one I scored as strongly associating Male with Science.

I took it again, waiting an hour in between, to make sure my left/right associations were lost. This time, things were switched and the first run through Science was paired with Female. Then switched. the result was that I had "no association."

Now, this is still a result and a different one from the first test in that it was not just inverted to Strong association of Female with Science. That said, but it seems to me the "left/right" association is more important than the "Sex/Science" one.

I know your blog post was not really about the science of the IAT's, but for those interested in discovering something about their own subconscious biases, I thought I would mention it because I think each individual probably needs to take a single association test multiple times to generate a valid result for that person.

Paul Scott said...

Very currious tests. You can see where too much of my time went today. I took the Religion test several time. The results differed slightly with repeat test. Mostly, the more often I took the test, the greater association I had towards all religions and "good."

In all tests, even my first, all religions were at least in the middle of the "associated with good" scale. Consistently, Christianity was most strongly associated with good, followed by Judaism, with Buddhism and Islam tied.

This just cannot be right. I think all religious people are mentally defective. I think religion is overwhelmingly a force for bad and that the world would be much better off if it were all destroyed.

The only thing I can think is that this test's ability to measure how quickly a person can recognize words as belonging to a category has little to no relationship to people's actual feelings.

toryburchoutlet said...

In all assessments, even my first, all belief systems were at least in the center of the "associated with good" range. Continually, Christianity was most highly associated with excellent, followed by Judaism, with Buddhism and Islam linked.

This just cannot be right. I think all spiritual individuals are psychologically faulty. I think belief is extremely a power for bad and that the community would be much better off if it were all demolished.Windows 7 professional Key
Windows 7 professional product Key
Windows 7 professional activation Key

love game said...

I know your writing was not really about theCheapest WOW Gold technology of the IAT's, but for those enthusiastic about finding something about their own unconscious tendencies, I believed I would discuss RS Goldit because I think each personal probably needs to take 1 organization analyze many periods to produce Sell Runescape Golda real outcome for that individual.