Thread by @DrWinarick

Once upon a time a long time ago, researchers submitted manuscripts to peer reviewed journals. Much of this research was thus highly, regarded, & influential, bringing us such important concepts like implicit racism, benevolent sexism, stereotype threat, & the F Scale & 1/x

The research also impacted policy - ended segregation, justified affirmitive action, and set laws for hiring to avoid workplace discrimination as well as protect those w disabilities. The research was historically used as anti-fascist and anti-communist propaganda in 2/

an effort spearheaded by the OSS. Social science should be at least partially credited for the attitude that prejudice is bad imo. It can also be credited for undermining arguments about genetic superiority by showing how SES confounds any such conclusions 3/

Social science research influenced the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder. And, it takes for granted that, multicultural competence is a good thing. It promotes diversity. It pathologizes bigotry. Who in their right mind would want to take it down? I’ll wait...4/

Before going further, just circling back to another contribution of social science to political policy: John Bowlby, attachment researcher, testified to Congress in the 50s about the nature of the damage done by child separation. Dunno the context but the gov wanted to know. 5/

So what is the good of using hyperbolic,overly general, all-or-none statements like “there is a replication crisis in social science” and then amplifying like CA micro-targeting persuadables, recruiting others to say the same and amplify their careers(eg Peterson, maybe Pinker 6/

The good from the perspective of evil is that there is now an army of “experts” perceived as credible by a younger demographic who can advance whatever message they want. Unlike the Post war period, these have been anti authoritarian messages, relegated to specific undergrad U 7/

*not been anti authoritarian....

From the perspective of the Koch Reich, they invested in an army of academics to be influencers - within and outside of the academy. Their goal: erode confidence in social science as a legitimate discipline capable of providing 8/

factual information with policy implications that can and should be applied. Enter: “A replication crisis” and a Koch Reich billionaire named Arnold. 9/

After palling around w the Koch Brothers, Arnold finds his boy. An academic who wrote a paper called something like “don’t rust the results of science papers.” I don’t know the readership then but currently it’s reportedly the most read work per twitter. happen w/out Koch? Naw...

[fyi-this is not mobbing or ad hominem. This is something like journalism I think?]

So when Arnold’s boy publishes a pre proof print of a study describing the benefits of a pharma drug on Covid using stats that would surely earn him an F in any doctoral program, you should know why that happened. When social science is maligned w the “replication crisis” trope,

you should know where that came from and why it became politicized. When you see Arnold’s boy minimizing Covid nursing home deaths with childlike statistical arguments, you know why. That. Is. All. @Stanford wtf

@threadreaderapp unroll

cc @LincolnsBible @MelissaJPeltier @page88

Guess no dice on the unroll

Footnote: one area of science has embraced the professor in question and use the “replication crisis” as a rallying cry. Guess which one? Pharma clinical trial research. Shocker 🙄

How one goes from philosophy of science expert critic to helping run and publicize a clinical trial is a bit weird too. #COVID

cc @RealJesseLuke @JRBneuropsiq @GoldfriedMarvin

cc @LincolnsBible @carouzzz @Nick_Carmody @MelissaJPeltier

cc @AllenFrancesMD