A recent meta-analysis has concluded that the IAT has predictive validity independent of the predictive validity of explicit measures. However, a follow-up meta-analysis questioned some of these results, finding that implicit measures were only weakly predictive of behaviors and no better than explicit measures. Some research has found that the IAT tends to be a better predictor of behavior in socially sensitive contexts (e.g. discrimination and suicidal behaviour) than traditional 'explicit' self-report methods, whereas explicit measures tend to be better predictors of behavior in less socially sensitive contexts (e.g. political preferences).
The IAT has also demonstrated a reasonable amount of resistance to social-desirability bias. Individuals asked to fake their responses on the IAT have demonstrated difficulty in doing so in some studies. … Distinct from faking (the deliberate obscuring of a true association), some studies have shown that heightening awareness about the nature of the test can change the outcome, potentially by activating different fluencies and associations.
Maybe we could substitute “Israeli” and “Palestinian” for “black” and “white.”
Speaking of, I also don't get how someone so in love with depth psychology can resist the idea of implicit biases, when, especially with Freud's theories, the idea of implicit bias fits like a T.
To pivot this to politics ...
We leftists and left-liberals must not let conservaDems, classical liberals, or whomever claim that the Democratic Party caved into identity politics at the expense of the working class.
Democratic Party local leaders stress that's a false dichotomy. And they're right.
And, we who vote outside the duopoly box must insist on this even more.