Skimmed that but didn't read that in full -- I'll get around to it. Thanks a lot.

Isn't it roughly what you'd expect, though? The authors are saying that the IAT isn't great at predicting discriminatory behavior. But discriminatory behavior depends on more than just your biases; you will discriminate more if your environment doesn't punish you, for instance. That kind of environment/self-interest factor might matter more than subconscious bias. (Your likelihood of, say, hiring a diverse workforce will depend more on the local population, the local laws, and the industry you work in, than your personal biases.)

I can report with some degree of confidence that the Blanton paper represents a skeptical view which is very much a minority in the field. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's biased or "wrong," but I think a LessWronger such as yourself will understand what this suggests regarding the intellectual status of their claims.

A couple papers to balance out the view from above:

Rebuttal to above by authors of "reanalyzed" study http://www.bsos.umd.edu/psyc/hanges/Ziegert%20and%20Hanges%202009.pdf

Reply to a different but similar Tetlock-and-friends critique: http://www.columbia.edu/~dc2534/RIOB_jost.et.al.pdf