Thread by @PsychRabble

Can't make this up. Given that "microaggressions" are defined exclusively or heavily in terms of subjective perceptions held by alleged targets, Haverford can punish people based on accusations alone (if microaggression=perception then accusation=guilt).
Thread
1/n ending in END

https://twitter.com/TheFIREorg/status/1410665975054274567

"But Lee, this is just another one of your wild takes," I can hear them denouncing me already. Let's see.

How did Nadal (the researcher, not the tennis player) measure "microaggressions"?
Did he assess the behavior of racists? No.
Did he assess behavior of anyone? No.
He assessed people's perceptions of what constituted microaggressions. Here are items from his questionnaire:

Note the refrain in the questions, "Someone assumed..."

So, "microaggressions" in this exquisite work of social science, were assessed by taking for granted people's ability to read others' minds.

The Orwelexicon is all over this delusion:

But this ideas that, somehow, "the only thing that counts," is subjective perceptions is all over the microaggressions lit. Classic critique of microaggressions.

One of the core premises is they can be assessed using only respondents' subjective reports. "A review of the lit reveals negligible support for all five suppositions."

BUT, Williams 2020 critiques Lilienfeld's critique.

Fair enough! The gods have not declared a critique to be more valid than that which it criticized.

But reminiscent of my own tw-battles w/academics, Williams makes *other* arguments that do not actually refute most or all of Lilienfeld's actual claims. This is Tw, so not going point-by-point here.

BUT, Williams reiterates the "subjective perceptions are fine" ridiculousness.

She claims to refute Lilienfeld's argument that there is negligible evidence that microaggressions can be validly measured with perceptions alone. One of the pieces of "evidence?" The Nadal Study displayed earlier in this thread relying on Implicit ESP Delusions!

Who cares about Haverford's stupid microaggression policy (outside of its faculty, staff and grad students who are now potentially subject to an accusation=guilt regime for meting out punishment)?

Given denunciations and firings for wrongthink, soft struggle sessions requiring confessions of privilege, racial segregation in the name of anti-racism, academic demonization of "whiteness," which is more likely?
1. This will spread like wildfire
or
2. It will stay at Haverford?

My pre-registered prediction:
Things will get worse before they get worse.
(If you search "psychrabble" and that phrase, you will see it repeatedly).

END