Real world examples of equalitarian/political biases leading literatures to be purged of "distasteful" results from psychological science

Guardian Box

Guardian Box

Radioactive Cognitohazard
Sotnik
copied from twitter / reddit



Archive link: Attention Required!

A Reddit user summarizing said:
Lee Jussim, Chair of the Department of Psychology at Rutgers, chronicles some examples of leftist bias in psychology research. See his tweets for details. I'll summarize the absolutely shocking key points (skip to #5, #6, and #7 for the worst):
  1. A 2018 study uncovered 17 UNPUBLISHED national surveys with representative samples totalling >10,000 respondents finding (1) no evidence of racial bias among whites and (2) "a small-to-moderate net discrimination in favour of black targets among blacks."
  2. A 2009 study responding to criticisms of the IAT (the implicit association test; "implicit bias") which "reported 10 studies no researcher should ignore" on the supposed reality of implicit bias. However, 7 out of the 10 papers did not even address racial bias. Of the 3 papers that did, they reported 4 studies on racial bias. 2 found no evidence of racial bias at all. 1 found a small bias but failed to test whether it "statistically differed from egalitarian responding." 1 found bias in 1/3 of conditions (no bias in 3/4 of conditions).
  3. One of the "most famous papers in early social psych" "claimed to show there is no reality, everything is subjective perception." See his tweet for the details. Essentially, it found that 92% of the time, there was no bias in perceptions at all. The study ignored this fact and based its extreme conclusion (everything is subjective) on the remaining 8%.
  4. A 2018 "review in the prestigious and high impact Annual Review of Psychology concluded that gender stereotypes were mostly inaccurate." However it ignored "11 papers reporting 16 studies that assessed gender stereotype accuracy." What did those 11 papers find? That gender stereotypes are (usually) more valid than most social psychological hypotheses.
  5. A 2012 paper "showing pro-male gender bias in science fields hiring a lab manager." Three years later, in 2015, a paper was published "showing pro-female gender bias across STEM fields in faculty hiring." Only counting AFTER the 2015 study came out, the 2012 paper has been cited over 7x more often. In other words, well over 1000 papers cite the 2012 paper without mentioning the 2015 one. "What's even more extraordinary is the superiority of the 2015 study on virtually all quantifiable measures of methods quality."
  6. "Routinely, studies finding pro-male bias in peer review are: 1. lower methodological quality 2. More highly cited than studies finding pro-female bias." Jussim reviewed the literature and found "far smaller samples but higher citations for studies finding pro-male bias." The mean sample size for studies finding pro-male bias was 825.5; for studies finding pro-female bias the sample was 11,385.67. Yet, mean citations of the pro-male studies were 91.75 and for the pro-female studies only 26.83.
  7. A 2003 meta-analysis showed "conservatives WAY MORE rigid/dogmatic than liberals." A 2010 meta-analysis "found mixed/weak evidence of such lib/con differences." The 2010 study had 127 studies and was cited 173 times since 2011. The 2003 study only had 88 studies, yet it was cited 3060 times since 2011.
Click to expand...

That's how true science is done today: you find sources that confirm your biases, and ignore the ones disagreeing with them.
 
Lanmandragon said:
What's great is that this nonsense is thier endgame. For actual sciences like chemistry and physics. Relgious adherence to doctrine is better than truth and facts are racist.
Click to expand...

The position that desired outcome trumps reality, and the notion that in order to obtain the desired result, no matter the actual merit of argument as long as it pushes the desired narrative, can likewise be found in the post-meritocratic flavour of identity politics.

The Post-Meritocracy Manifesto - Created by Coraline Ada Ehmke

postmeritocracy.org

Long story short, it's similar "you are what you identify as", only with (technical) merit instead of gender. Because really, rejecting merit (in technical sense) in bloody programming??? What's next, identity politics in medical sciences or engineering?

Honestly, I would love to see these post-meritocrats to get a taste of their own medicine, as long as the "results" are limited (even better: obligatory) to said post-meritocrats and only them.

"Hey there, progressive person, I hear you need brain surgery or heart transplant? Never worry, here are non-gender-specific Billy(-a) and Ann(-y). One is a high-shool drop-out, the other has a degree in Gender Studies and History of Marxism. But hey, on this here fine morning they identify as career surgeons, so really, there's nothing for you to fear... And surely, you don't mean to discriminate against them by denying their self-identification as valid, hmmm?"

Or:

"Don't worry, this here brand new air-liner is perfectly safe to fly. Why, a safe-space in air even! It was designed, from ground-up, by people who identify as aerospace engineers. Not just that, everything about this plane is identity-based. Oh yes. Everything from components and materials identified as aircraft-grade, designed and manufactured by self-identified (social) engineers, via avionics and electrical systems, through engines, all the way to final assembly. Our new airliner is, like, 1000% identity-designed, -made and -built".

Collateral damage aside, the "issue" would resolve itself pretty fast by means of applied Darwinism...
 
Tryglaw said:
Long story short, it's similar "you are what you identify as", only with (technical) merit instead of gender. Because really, rejecting merit (in technical sense) in bloody programming??? What's next, identity politics in medical sciences or engineering?
Click to expand...
The doctrine of solipsistic identity is so wrong that I have to reject the premises that allow you to come to it as a conclusion. This is why I have came to the position that people have no control over their identity whatsoever. Your identity is the relationship that the rest of the world has with you. Your only input on your identity is what you do to convince the world to change that relationship.
 
Doomsought said:
The doctrine of solipsistic identity is so wrong that I have to reject the premises that allow you to come to it as a conclusion. This is why I have came to the position that people have no control over their identity whatsoever. Your identity is the relationship that the rest of the world has with you. Your only input on your identity is what you do to convince the world to change that relationship.
Click to expand...

This is an absolutely brilliant summation of reality and I thank you very much for it.
 
Tyanna of Pentos said:
This is an absolutely brilliant summation of reality and I thank you very much for it.
Click to expand...
I even have supporting evidence for this definition of identity: What is identity theft?

When someone steals your identity, they do not take away your agency or anything like they. They steal the relationship that other agencies, typically banks or a government, has with you.
 
Doomsought said:
I even have supporting evidence for this definition of identity: What is identity theft?

When someone steals your identity, they do not take away your agency or anything like they. They steal the relationship that other agencies, typically banks or a government, has with you.
Click to expand...


That's a brilliant example and I think the only way to counter it is to redefine identity--and that proves your point so much the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top