even when subjects respond to names commonly associated with Caucasian and Black people. A quick skim through the many blogs commenting on this work reveals a common refrain that makes the key point: many that have taken this test, whether focusing on race, sexual orientation, or political affiliation, opine that the test must be invalid because they explicitly disavow any groupish biases. But that’s the point! What we disavow explicitly has less impact than we would like on what we hold implicitly. If our implicit system champions one view of racism and our explicit system another, then we are continuously faced with an epic conflict. To resolve this conflict, and enable the explicit system to emerge triumphant, requires self-control, keeping the implicit system quiet. Studies of the brain provide interesting insights into this process. Recall that when we experience conflict, regardless of its content, there is activation in the anterior cingulate. When we exert self-control, regardless of content, there is activation in particular regions within the prefrontal cortex. When we feel threatened by a dangerous animal or person, there is activation in the amygdala. These three brain regions tell an interesting story about how we process race. When Caucasian subjects view faces of Black as opposed to Caucasian people staring at them, there is greater activation in the amygdala. This racial difference disappears if subjects view photos of faces looking away or with eyes closed. It is the potentially threatening aspect of a face staring at you that engages the racial difference. If you briefly flash faces at Caucasian subjects so that they are unaware of them, there is stronger activation in the amygdala for Black than Caucasian faces. But if you present the faces for long enough, allowing them to enter conscious awareness, the amygdala’s pattern of activity goes away, replaced instead by strong activation in the anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex. Staring longer