I have found application of the Implicit Association test to areas such as voting even more interesting. For example, some researchers studies undecided voters and published an article several months back. The researchers showed that even for people who strongly believed they were undecided, when you had those undecided individuals take an implicit association test using Obama and McCain, the results of test (i.e. their implicit answer) was very strongly correlated with their actually vote.
What does this mean? Does it mean that not all "undecideds" are really undecided? Perhaps.
But we also know that you can change you implicit associations (at least temporarily). For example, you can change your result on the race IAT mentioned in the post by watching the Olympics, viewing pictures of positive black people such as MLK, etc.
During the campaign, one of the things I kept wonder about was the extent to which Obama's positive (the ones showing Obama) was influencing people's implicit associations. This would have been an interesting study.
Please, please, please stop talking about nominating Hillary to the supreme court.
She simply doesn't have the qualifications. Supreme court justices do one thing and one thing only. They decide constitutional issues. that means, they spend hours and days and years delving into the inner workings of the constitution. Sure supreme court justices bring to this work their political inclinations, but still those political beliefs are only a gloss that is applied to the constitutional analysis itself.
Hillary is not exactly someone who has show that she can or should be doing this.