Quite biased. At least the Wikipedia page includes a Criticism section. Also, as with most psychology, the prior should be that all these studies are a result of p-hacking and publication bias (i.e. that the effect is actually noise).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test#Crit...

Also pretty obvious biased cherry picking on that page. Counterexample:

Women preferred 2:1 over men for STEM faculty positions

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9372481

I don't see how the provided counterexample is a counterexample. It appears to indicate unconscious bias favoring women in STEM faculty positions for hiring.

No evidence is given about whether the bias is unconscious.

I believe it can be inferred that it's not conscious, because if women were actually being hired intentionally at a 2 to 1 ratio, that would be an obvious violation of law against gender discrimination.

Doing "X" intentionally would be illegal, therefore it could be inferred that whoever did "X" wasn't doing it consciously.