@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych Nah. Just a social psychologists who knows where the skeletons are hidden and who has the skillsets to check under the hood to see how the sausage, whoops, I mean "consensus" is made.
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych The Sordid History of "Consensus" in Social Psychology
A Thread 1/n ending in END
A Priori: When IS social science credible?
This is when:
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych Notice the absence of "Majority Vote." Scientific facts/truths are not established by "consensus."
Claims that "X should be believed because consensus" are social conformity moves, and should be a HUGE red flag that maybe "They do not have the evidence."
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych Social sciences had a consensus that, if you remove stereotype threat, it would eliminate, or at least reduce, demographic differences in achievement test scores. They were wrong. FAILED pre-registered replications.
WHOOPSIE!
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych There was a consensus that "implicit biases" captured "unconscious racism" -- a claim you can still easily find today.
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych There was a consensus that, in the democratic west, there just were no leftwing authoritarians. It was wrong.
WHOOPSIE!
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych There was a consensus that it was really only or mostly conservatives who held prejudices; liberals were open minded egalitarians. It was wrong.
WHOOPSIE!
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych Many of the errors are consistent with leftist/liberal worldviews. Which should not be surprising, given the makeup of the social sciences. Dem:Repub ratios at top colleges. There is a "consensus" about oppression&social justice independent of study results!
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych So, the next time a "consensus" emerges from social science on some politicized topic -- please forgive my skepticism. Ability to cite a sheer "volume" of reports will not convince me. Reach at least the 2nd level from top here.
@RhiannonDauster@MGalvanPsych END, with some delicious quotes from the great Psychological Methodologist and Philosopher of Science, Paul Meehl:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In honor of this stupidity, I thread here an incomplete list of the White administrators and faculty at elite U's that have been forced out for: 1. Ethics violations 2. No ethics violation at all.
🧵
Its worth remembering that, whether or not they "defended" firings, they denied that "cancel culture" was a thing and *justified* punishing targets & *implemented* firings, suspensions & retracting papers) with variations of "look how evil that person is."
🧵w/receipts.
First, the firings. When possible, I purposely chose some of the most obvious glorification of the firings. Like here: theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
David Shor, fired for Tweeting a peer reviewed sociology article showing that peaceful protests are more effective than violent ones at persuading people. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Dear Aidan,
Please explain how this ad is NOT in violation of U.S. and Washington DC (where APA, the society sponsoring this journal, is housed) laws prohibiting discrimination based on race.
🧵 ending in END.
The ad, shown in full above, includes:
"In service of APA's commitment to EDI... APA Publishing's fellowship program seeks to elevate leadership opportunities for ECP's (early career psychologists) from communities that have been historically underrepresented..." It explains:
"Such individuals include, but are not limited to, psychologists who are Black, Indigenous, or other people of color and ethnicities..."
Introducing the new Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences. And we mean "new" not just "another." 1/2
Spread the word to those who pub behavioral sciences.
@lakens @CJFerguson1111 @MattGrossmann @JukkaSavo @JonHaidt @peterboghossian @a_m_mastroianni, @RickCarlsson @CHSommers @chrisdc77 @profyancey @ImHardcory @yorl @minzlicht @MarcusCrede @sociologyWV @primalpoly @SteveStuWill
Also, @HSJSpeaks, @lastpositivist, @Docstockk, @olivertraldi (note to philosophers: We currently have a paper under review by Holly Lawford-Smith). Journal practices inspired by @jon_rauch. @StuartJRitchie (see top tws⬆️).
THREAD
Academia continues to embarass itself. Paper retracted for absurd concocted reason (way worse than "technicality"). wsj.com/articles/medic…
1/n
From the WSJ article:
"While the respondents consented to the publication of the survey’s results, Springer insists they didn’t specifically agree to publication in a scholarly or peer-reviewed journal. That’s a strange and retrospective requirement" 2/n
How this works now -- see @JukkaSavo's thread and paper:
Unequal Treatment Under the Flaw,
on why retractions are no longer for fraud, they are in response to activists who identify flaws that are never used to retract papers that don't piss off activists.
@AndrewJ73405114@HonestNauman@Komi_Frey@Stanford If anyone is "looking for" ways to be concerned, they sure don't need to look very hard. Reply 🧵
1/n.
The initiative clearly is at Stanford & whole pt of "initiative" is to persuade others to adopt, well, what shall we call this?
@AndrewJ73405114@HonestNauman@Komi_Frey@Stanford Steelman: "New norms for inclusive language."
Alternative view: "Language policing."
Why? Because of widespread *enforcement* of these "new norms" through punishments.