The results presented are a picture of a completely different person. Considering that the measures have been associated with the hidden psychology the results might be right. The measurements and the variables indicate the preference for the young over the old. From the test, it appears unknowingly the patient would act against my normal judgment and opt to give preference to the young over the old. Considering the declaimer given that the psychological tool might be limited to certain psychological measurement gaps it might not be considered to provide room for a second opinion. The number of research that has been conducted indicates that no measures have been proven to reduce let alone eliminate implicit biases. As such should the results presented be undoubtedly true then it would be concluded that there is a preference of young people over the old that is hidden and has not yet manifested in the patient’s everyday characters. Between the volunteer work at the old people's shelters and the excessive time invested as a caregiver, it seems very unlikely that this becomes the conclusive prognosis. Psychologically every activity and every social interaction of the patient do not present any signs that would point towards this very conclusion. However, considering that this is the measure of hidden psychology it could be considered true.
Singal, (2017) points out that the IAT has serious flaws in its attainment of reliability and validity as a test. This is very shocking considering how popular the test is with its potential in addressing racism. The research points to this flaw and it raises questions as to why the system was launched for public use in the first place. The idea presented in this case is that the concept of test-retest reliability that the system presents defies the normal projections. Different instruments have very contrasting test-retest reliabilities. Take for example a measure of someone’s height within a period of one week. The results in such a reading would present very close to similar results. The error margins for such a measure are very clear and can easily be pointed out based on the instrument used. The test-retest measure is a go-to indicator for the recommendations of a tool by any psychologist especially when the test that would be given is going to be very important for someone. It should be noted then that the use of the IAT and its claim that it is useful on a single season would be opposed to this psychological rule.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It should be noted however that although the system has some shortcoming it does answer some rather interesting questions. Take for example the idea of equality. The test is created upon the concept that everyone has some form of biases. It would point out that one has preferences that would not easily have been manifested in their everyday activities. The system has been helpful in criminal profiling and even helpful for certain employment professions. The idea being that even the hidden psychology at some point will have some impact on the general choices that people make. IAT systems seem to point clearly to some of these psychological characters that would otherwise never have been captured by a psychologist.
The expertise of the creators of the system is unquestionable. It would appear that the system does have certain loopholes that bring to question its results as being relied upon as an expert's final prognosis. Based on this line of thinking, it then would be true that the results presented require a second opinion for them to be conclusive. Singal, (2017) presents the argument that the speed with which one gets to pick an answer should not be a determining measure of one's hidden psychology. The practicability of the measures used based on ones seep or memory and reflexes is not possible to be tested and retested. Those opposed to the answers of IAT are equally experts. There line of questioning and the examples presented does seem to offer substantial room to doubt the results presented for the patient. Considering that this is but examples and no real-time evidence has been presented to show that the system actually offers the wrong prognosis it presents some doubts to questions IATs imperfections.
The results presented were that the patient had a preference for younger people over the older ones. His activities, on the other hand, showed his close interactions with the old rather than the young. As such this seems to totally be different from the normal life patterns of the patient. Considering that the measurements presented by the system are pointing to a hidden psychology this might be true. However, Singal, (2017) point of view and the shortcomings that have been noted in the system also present some form of a dilemma. The IAT systems are very popular and their over-reliance on very important information for the patients seem to be unquestionable. However, based on the findings of Singal, (2017) there is room to better IAT systems and make the results much more reliable.
Reference
Singal, J (2017). Psychology’s Favorite Tool for Measuring Racism Isn’t Up to the Job . Retrieved.(April 20, 2018), website:The CUT, site: https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the- job.html
