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
"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

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with The Dread Pirate Jussim

The Dread Pirate Jussim Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PsychRabble

27 Jun
@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."
Read 12 tweets
27 Jun
@RhiannonDauster @MGalvanPsych "The evidence is overwhelming."
While on the topic of cherrypicking, shall we look at some of the other evidence?
17 experiments, nationally representative samples.
No bias.
@RhiannonDauster @MGalvanPsych Huge audit study NOT included in the meta-analysis Galvan cites. I wonder why?
@RhiannonDauster @MGalvanPsych Other experimental studies finding somewhere between 0 and trivial levels of discrim.
Read 7 tweets
27 Jun
This has deservedly gone semi-viral (>2k likes). I thread some of my fav replies (which are also excellent) here.
1/n ending in END
Eric was told to ask some "genuine social scientists." His reply not only "rings true," I have seen it. They are so enmeshed in a leftist/activist bubble that conservatives, centrists, libertarians and even mere skeptics scare the bejeesus out of them:
Read 10 tweets
24 Jun
This is why I believe in "implicit bias" (just not the form advanced by most academics). Psychologists SAY the right things. Then keep citing studies that violate several of these standards. Thread with examples.
1/n ending in END.
All Citation Counts are from Google Scholar, 2016 and later -- i.e., AFTER the Replication Crisis and Methodological Reforms.

Reminder: Typical articles are hardly cited. An article cited>100 is influential; >1000 VERY influential.
Stereotype Threat, Steele & Aronson 1995.
Citations: 4770
Low Power
Methods, data not publicly available
No representative samples.
Effect sizes not reported
Not preregistered
Read 9 tweets
14 Jun
Thread: Mostly Accessible Sources* Critical of "Implicit Bias" and "Implicit Bias Trainings"
*Serious scientific and science reporting sources. Not talking your libertarian uncle who runs a car dealership.
1/n Ending in END.
Reupping this blog for the evening crowd.
Before @jessesingal wrote this article, attempts to scientifically criticize implicit bias or the implicit association test were demonized, derogated, and dismissed. This opened the floodgates.
thecut.com/2017/01/psycho…
Jesse is a science news reporter, so that is written in a manner that most people can understand. So is this:
qz.com/1144504/the-wo…
Referring to implicit bias trainings: "The results are underwhelming"
Read 25 tweets
26 May
When Bret Stephens, a NYT Opinion writer, expresses more sense and insight on prejudice than I have seen throughout all of Academia: A thread of quotes from:
nytimes.com/2021/05/24/opi…
"In recent years it has become an article of faith on the progressive left that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism and that it’s slander to assume that someone who hates Israel also hates Jews.

Not everyone got the memo."
"Not the people who, waving Palestinian flags and chanting “Death to Jews,” according to a witness, assaulted Jewish diners at a Los Angeles sushi restaurant. Not the people who threw fireworks in New York’s diamond district."
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(