![you just failed the gay test sexy you just failed the gay test sexy](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/60710dfe313f23423168b549/master/pass/210419_r38233.jpg)
Of course, the words and key combinations were switched over the course of many test runs. They were to press a different key as soon as an introverted characteristic (say, “quiet” or “withdrawn”) appeared or when the word involved someone else. They were also asked to press the same key as soon as they saw a word on the screen that related to themselves (such as their own name). For example, participants in a study were asked to press a key as quickly as possible when a word that described a characteristic such as extroversion (say, “talkative” or “energetic”) appeared on a screen. Notably, experimenters seek to determine how closely words that are relevant to a person are linked to certain concepts. The approach assumes that instantaneous reactions require no reflection as a result, unconscious parts of the personality come to the fore. Since then, numerous variants have been devised to examine anxiety, impulsiveness and sociability, among other features. To measure unconscious inclinations, psychologists can apply a method known as the implicit association test (IAT), developed in the 1990s by Anthony Greenwald of the University of Washington and his colleagues, to uncover hidden attitudes. And they probe unconscious inclinations using special methods. They may ask other people, such as relatives or friends, to assess subjects as well. For example, they compare the self-assessments of test subjects with the subjects’ behavior in laboratory situations or in everyday life. Investigators use a variety of techniques to tackle such questions. How well do people know themselves? In answering this question, researchers encounter the following problem: to assess a person’s self-image, one would have to know who that person really is. Your motives are often a complete mystery to you. Although we think we are observing ourselves clearly, our self-image is affected by processes that remain unconscious.Ģ. Is the word “introspection” merely a nice metaphor? Could it be that we are not really looking into ourselves, as the Latin root of the word suggests, but producing a flattering self-image that denies the failings that we all have? The research on self-knowledge has yielded much evidence for this conclusion. Pronin argues that we are primed to mask our own biases. It was much the same in judging works of art, although subjects who used a biased strategy for assessing the quality of paintings nonetheless believed that their own judgment was balanced. Although the opinions of the subjects were almost certainly biased (not only had they supposedly failed the test, they were also being asked to critique it), most of the participants said their evaluations were completely objective. Afterward, some of them were told that they had failed and were asked to name weaknesses in the testing procedure. Among other things, she had her study participants complete a test involving matching faces with personal statements that would supposedly assess their social intelligence. Pronin assessed her thesis in a number of experiments. But we do not consider that we could behave in much the same way: because we intend to be morally good, it never occurs to us that we, too, might be prejudiced. We have no trouble recognizing how prejudiced or unfair our office colleague acts toward another person. As evidence, she points to our divergent views of ourselves and others. Because we do not want to be stingy, arrogant or self-righteous, we assume that we are not any of those things. The reason for this distorted view is quite simple, according to Pronin. For example, we may be absolutely convinced that we are empathetic and generous but still walk right past a homeless person on a cold day. As a result, our self-image has surprisingly little to do with our actions. Princeton University psychologist Emily Pronin, who specializes in human self-perception and decision making, calls the mistaken belief in privileged access the “introspection illusion.” The way we view ourselves is distorted, but we do not realize it. When we try to assess ourselves accurately, we are really poking around in a fog. This notion is popular but is probably completely false! Psychological research shows that we do not have privileged access to who we are. Just peer inside and read: who you are, your likes and dislikes, your hopes and fears they are all there, ready to be understood. Your “self” lies before you like an open book. Your perspective on yourself is distorted.