1. Hot off the press: Taboos & Self-Censorship
In a sample of psych profs, we identify points of conflict & consensus regarding (1) controversial empirical claims & (2) normative preferences for how controversial scholarship & scholars should be treated:
People who more often signal their victimhood are more likely to lie, cheat, and engage in other unethical behaviors in order to get ahead, even at others’ expense.
People also incentivize victimhood signaling by giving resources to those who do.
"Newly published research indicates that people who more frequently signal their victimhood (whether real, exaggerated, or false) are more likely to lie and cheat for material gain and denigrate others as a means to get ahead."
My latest essay at
@Quillette
:
1. Science often contradicts other science. When this happens, disputant scholars tend to work separately, designing their own new studies to launch at their opponents. These new studies rarely persuade the other side, and contradictory claims live in on for years or decades.
1. My latest now out in
@PNASNews
w/38 all-star co-authors. Scientists censor themselves and each other largely for prosocial reasons, to protect reputations from public scrutiny & to protect vulnerable groups from potentially harmful scientific findings:
As young as age ~4, girls are more egalitarian.
When evaluating drawings, boys were more likely than girls to award more stickers to more skilled drawings, whereas girls were more likely than boys to award the same number of stickers to both.
1. University faculty (n=775) in majority male disciplines evaluated female candidates as more competent and hirable than male candidates with identical CVs:
Many modern gender biases favor women at the expense of men.
A nice summary of recent work on gender bias (and potential consequences of continuing to ignore anti-male bias) by
@JohnTierneyNYC
covering some of my work with
@EPoe187
:
Conservatives are more anti-scientist than anti-science:
Cons generally agree that science benefits society & these attitudes have been stable over the past decade. But increasingly, they do not trust the people running the scientific community:
1. The scientific elite (scientists in the top 1% for citations) increasingly reside in Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand and decreasingly reside in the US.
Vigilantes (those who monitor others for moral wrongdoing and take it upon themselves to punish others) are particularly high in communal narcissism (belief that one is exceptionally beneficial to other people) and sadism (enjoying harming others):
2. On rare occasions, scholars swallow their pride and put their theories at real risk by working with their intellectual opponents. These are called Adversarial Collaborations (term coined by Danny Kahneman), and
@PTetlock
and I have been working hard to normalize them.
1. Academia increasingly prioritizes equity and works to ensure scholarship does not offend or pose risks to vulnerable groups.
@EPoe187
and I contend that these shifting priorities are caused, in part, by the growing proportion of women in academia:
1. Even when ideologies align, people distrust politicized institutions:
In 3 studies & across 40 institutions,
@calvinisch2
@JimACEverett
@azimshariff
& I find evidence that perceived politicization is strongly associated with lower trust in institutions
3. Scientific censorship distorts understanding of empirical reality, can turn well-intentioned interventions into little more than a waste of time & resources (or worse), and gives the public good reason to distrust and disregard scientific findings and recommendations.
When evaluating research arguing that males or females are more intelligent, both men and women expect men to be biased in favor of men and women to be biased in favor of women.
But both men and women are biased in favor of women.
By
@SteveStuWill
& co:
Please meet The Don Corleone Principle:
People have a pro-blame bias such that they tend to view others as especially responsible for bringing about harmful outcomes (relative to neutral or positive ones) because under-blaming is evolutionarily costly:
1. Here's a New Year's Resolution: More tolerance toward political opponents🥳
Dems and Reps tend to caricature one another (see example below from )
Our opponents really are not as extreme, homogeneous, or morally inferior as people tend to think.
Contrary to media headlines, countries led by women did not have fewer Covid fatalities than countries led by men.
Not reported in the abstract: more women in the legislature was associated with higher fatalities.
The cutest jealousy documented to date:
Doggos pull more forcefully to approach their owner when they believe their owner is petting and praising another dog than when they believe their owner is petting an praising a fleece cylinder:
.
@ChrisWillx
& I discuss pro-women biases, why ev psych is controversial, taboos & self-censorship among psych profs, different academic priorities among male & female scholars & how the changing gender composition of academia is changing academic culture:
1. In a sample of ~2500 political scientists from across the globe, those further to the left were less likely to report that respect for open debate and diverse perspectives, political pressures, and academic freedom have gotten worse:
People are attracted to co-partisan extremists, despite that political extremists are more likely to lack numerous epistemic virtues (e.g., cognitive flexibility & intellectual humility).
My first blogpost for
@PsychToday
is live:
Although liberals score higher on personality measures of egalitarianism, some recent work finds that liberals tend to treat information and people more unequally on the basis of sex, race, and group status (than conservatives).
My latest
@PsychToday
:
1. A sneak peak at yet unpublished meta-analyses on whether there is gender bias in academic science in six domains: letters of recommendation, tenure-track hiring, journal acceptances, grant funding, salary, and teaching ratings:
1. Paper finds that, if anything, manuscripts by women are evaluated more favorably than those by men.
This might be partially explained by the fact that women are more likely to review women's manuscripts, and women receive better reviews from women.
2. Although many assume that disparities constitute evidence of discrimination against the underrepresented group, in societies that seek to correct disparities, disparities often cause the opposite: discrimination against the overrepresented group.
3. In two weeks, we will be presenting preliminary results of three of our adversarial collaborations (ACs) at
#SPSP2022
. All of our data collections are still underway, so we have no idea how the results will turn out. Care to predict the findings?
9. Younger, more left-leaning, and female professors were generally more opposed to controversial scholarship and more supportive of punishing peers who report controversial research conclusions (e.g., with ostracism, public shaming).
Conservatives preferred teaching candidates who emphasized student personal responsibility over a broken education system, regardless of candidate race. Liberals particularly liked White candidates emphasizing a broken system & disliked White candidates emphasizing responsibility
People view positive characteristics (attractive, kind, generous, caring, organized) as more genetically caused than the negative version of those same characteristics (unattractive, mean, selfish, uncaring, disorganized):
Bad news all:
Regardless of whether tweets are about positive or negative political events, tweets that use negative language receive more retweets.
Twitter reinforces negativity.
By
@JonasP_Schoene
@Amit_Goldenb
& co:
1. Science journals have begun adding moral criteria to their pub guidelines, stating they might reject or retract potentially harmful papers.
In 2 studies, Maja Graso
@irakresh
@PTetlock
& I found that people systematically overestimate scientific harms:
People evaluate identical statements about a group as more offensive & unacceptable when the statements are made by someone outside the group than someone inside the group.
But people say that speaker group membership does not influence their evaluations:
3. For male-typed jobs, males used to be favored & now no gender bias is observed
For gender neutral jobs, males used to be favored & now females are
For female-typed jobs, females were & are still favored
(ORs<1 = females favored)
New analysis of (potential) gender bias in academic science finds:
No consistent evidence of gender bias in grant funding, journal acceptances, & letters of rec
Men paid ~4% more & receive more favorable teaching evals
Women more likely to get hired
Both liberals & conservatives rate their political opponents as more blameworthy and responsible for an immoral behavior than their political comrades for the *exact same behavior*:
6. Compared to the untenured, tenured profs were just as fearful of all consequences, and tenured profs reported just as much self-censorship (perhaps because tenure does not protect against the consequences profs fear most—name calling and ostracism).
When people hugged an opposite sex stranger for 30 seconds (relative to no hug), they rated the opposite sex stranger as hotter. Because hugs are sexually arousing to people.
This was true for both men and women:
In an analysis of 65+ million words, the most gender neutral attributes (i.e., descriptors used with similar frequency to describe men and women) are: Intelligent, Assured, Clever, Affected, Moral, Respectable
11. The findings suggest the possibility that a majority supports the exploration of controversial research conclusions but remains silent because they are intimidated by a vocal (but broadly disliked) minority of scholars who oppose such research.
1. People say the political content of speech does not influence their support for free speech, but it does. People oppose restrictions on free speech more for politically desirable content than politically undesirable content.
*But...
2. However these harm concerns are largely based on intuitive assumptions rather than empirical evidence, and the immediate and downstream costs of censorship are rarely weighed against the supposed harms.
1. In my new chapter w/
@natehoneycutt
&
@PsychRabble
, we argue that scientists might actually be humans. And that as humans, scientists might be vulnerable to the same kinds of errors, biases, & motivations that they so often study in non-scientist humans:
An analysis of 228 original psych papers that later failed to replicate:
@paulrconnor
@calvinisch2
& I found that publication of failed replications predicted lower future citations for original papers & that the size of this reduction increased over time:
APA interviewed me about political polarization in the US.
TLDR: Both liberals and conservatives are politically biased, dislike their political opponents, and hold political double standards. And we do not have many promising solutions.
Most effective hookup tactics:
For women, signaling sexual accessibility (e.g., getting a drink, kissing, going home with him)
For men, signaling long-term interest (taking her to dinner, talking, offering to walk her home)
8. ACs are challenging--the research process is carried out far more meticulously when you are working with people who want/expect to find opposing results. But they all have proceeded very harmoniously, and I am hopeful we will make real progress on formerly intractable debates.
1. The journal Nature Human Behaviour reserves the right to censor "Content that undermines — or could reasonably be perceived to undermine — the rights and dignities of an individual or human group on the basis of socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings."
I believe the Trump ban happened at ~6:21pm. Rather than having liberal and conservative echo chambers on Twitter, we might now have separate liberal and conservative social media platforms.
Women were less likely to be selected as fellows (than similarly qualified men) from 1933-1979. In the past decade, the reverse has emerged "with over a 100% increase in the probability of selection for female authors relative to males with similar publications and citations."
A historical negative gap in selection of women for the Econometric Society has been reversed, conditional on publications & citations. A large negative gap from 1933-1979 period, evened & then became positive after 2010
4. Both academics & everyday people correctly anticipated that pro-male bias has been decreasing over time, but they also drastically overestimated pro-male bias in male-typed & gender-neutral jobs. Indeed, for later years, they had the direction backward: women are now favored.
People are more generous and prosocial toward those from lower social classes than those from higher social classes, partially because lower social class folk are perceived as more deserving of good things in life.
By
@PaulvanLange
@joshtybur
& co:
"Arguing political positions with personal experiences garners more respect, trust, and engagement with one’s perspective than arguing with facts, statistics, and scientific data."
My latest
@PsychToday
summarizes recent work by
@emily_kubin
& co:
2. Off-limits research conclusions tend to involve group differences in socially important outcomes, and particularly when differences are attributed to genetic or otherwise natural differences between groups (as opposed to social or environmental causes).
These findings are consistent with a growing body of work demonstrating that liberals tend to treat people more unequally on the basis of their group membership (favoring members of marginalized groups), whereas conservatives treat people more equally:
4. Professors more confident in the truth of the taboo conclusions reported more self-censorship, a pattern that may bias perceived scientific consensus toward rejecting controversial conclusions.
5. Scientific censorship has been increasing in recent years, and in some cases, is now written into journal policy. Yet research on the costs and benefits of censorship--research that could help adjudicate debates--is almost non-existent.
Majority members in the US, Germany, Italy, South Korea, UK, & Canada demonstrate minority favoritism, favoring Black over White and gay over straight managers. In the US, only political conservatives demonstrated no racial or sexual orientation preference
8. And profs expressed a great deal of contempt for peers who petition to retract papers for moral reasons (although they admire peers who petition to retract papers for data fraud).
"Young adults were more censorious than older adults overall, but this difference was larger among men, such that young men supported censorship at levels similar to women."
My latest
@PsychToday
:
4. W/
@jayvanbavel
, Jarret Crawford &
@Louiseyzi
, we are testing for political bias in the published psychology literature. Will we find evidence that liberal friendly research findings are held to lower standards and cited more than less lib-friendly findings?
Across numerous measures of political bias (e.g., double standards, confirmation biases), higher intellectual humility was associated with less political bias and was similarly protective against bias among both the left and right.
By
@ShaunaBowes1
& co:
"Tribal bias is a natural and nearly ineradicable feature of human cognition, and no group—not even one’s own—is immune."
Coverage of my article Tribalism is Human Nature w/
@EPoe187
& co in
@nytimes
:
3. The 18% gender salary gap shrinks to 4% controlling for type of institution, discipline, and years of experience. This 4% does not control for the fact that men publish more, so the apples to apples gap might be smaller than that.
Leading people to believe that most others in their group share their moral concerns increases intentions for radical political action.
I wonder if highlighting extremism in the media leads people to believe that extremist attitudes are typical...🤔
5. Most professors reported some fear of social sanctions if they were to express their own empirical beliefs regarding the controversial conclusions, especially of social media attacks, peer ostracism, and being labeled pejorative terms.
4. Most scholars sincerely want what is best for society but have radically different beliefs about how science facilitates that goal. These conflicting views have created a culture war among scientists about whether academic freedom is essential or dangerous.
5. Both academics & everyday people also drastically overestimated pro-female bias in female-typed jobs. And they anticipated that this bias has also been decreasing over time, but it does not appear to be. Women always were and still are favored for these jobs.
6. Scientific censorship is typically disguised as legitimate scientific criticism, and so it is very difficult to detect, measure, and study, especially with the current lack of transparency and accountability in scientific decision making.
People report greater willingness to invest in and more positive feelings and trust toward a person they just met who shares their political views than toward an established friend whom they discover does not share their political views.
7. If you are attending
#SPSP2022
, you can complete the polls on Whova by clicking 'Resources'-->'Polls'. And you can see what we found by attending our session on Friday (the 18th) at 8am: Keep Your Enemies Close: Adversarial Collaborations Will Improve Science.
2. This meta included 44 years of field audit studies (in which carefully-matched female & male job applications are sent to real orgs) testing for gender biases in callback rates for female-
stereotypical, gender neutral, & male-stereotypical jobs
5. We should generally beware of anecdotes, but these meta-analyses were sent to *seven* reviewers and ultimately rejected. In my experience, 2-3 reviewers is typical, 4 is above average, 5 is very rare, and 7 is unheard of (until now).
3. Professors strongly disagreed on the truth status of 10 candidate taboo research conclusions–for each conclusion, some professors reported 100% certainty in the veracity and others 100% certainty in the falsehood.
Consistent with popular interpretations of "getting ratioed", people are more likely to read posts the more they agree with them but more likely to *comment* on posts the more they disagree.
#Ratio
By
@BrettButtliere
& co:
1. New report by
@Komi_Tea
@TheFIREorg
on scholars targeted for sanctions from 2015-present.
They are increasing in frequency, and increasingly coming from people further to the left of the targeted scholar.
I think it’s really irresponsible that we haven’t decided to cancel Christmas this year. Santa is well into the 75+ age group, and I don’t see how he can go house-to-house all night and not catch Covid.
#SaveSanta
#CancelChristmas
When evaluating policy tradeoffs, Dems and Reps say their *own* primary goals are intended and any unfortunate side-effects are not, but view the *opposing party's* side-effects as intended and their primary goals as less intentional:
8. We conclude with several recommendations for increasing accountability and transparency in scientific decision making (e.g., experimental audits of academic institutions and open peer review for accepted and rejected articles that could expose double standards and censorship.)
The evolution of dance:
Individual dance may signal information about mating qualities (e.g., physical strength in men, physical attractiveness in women), whereas group dance may signal social qualities such as contributions to coalitional cohesion:
"Ultimately, it may be easier to eliminate anti-female bias than to eliminate false beliefs in its continued existence."
In
@QueerMajority
I discuss progress in eliminating anti-female bias & denial of this progress among scientists and the public:
Are Liberals Really More Egalitarian?
Recent research finds that conservatives often treat information and people more equally on the basis of sex, race, and group status (than liberals).
Currently the most popular read on
@PsychToday
(pardon the brag):
Although liberals score higher on personality measures of egalitarianism, some recent work finds that liberals tend to treat information and people more unequally on the basis of sex, race, and group status (than conservatives).
My latest
@PsychToday
:
Why do people use anecdotes & lived experience to defend political positions?
Perhaps because people evaluate opponents as more rational & worthy of respect when they appeal to personal experiences rather than facts
Latest by
@emily_kubin
@kurtjgray
&co
The reason facts fail when it comes to moral disagreement is because they seem untrue in this post-truth "fake-news" world. Instead, personal experiences seem true, even from opponents.
The CRAP framework for dealing with organizational bullshit seems useful for Twitter bullshit as well:
Expect and be alert to BS. Escape or Confront the BS. Value expertise over egalitarianism, and evidence over opinions. Prohibit statistical trickery.
3. Across numerous surveys, women (compared to men) report lower support for academic freedom and pursuit of truth and higher support for various moral priorities related to equity, emotional well-being, and social justice
7. However, journals now require high levels of transparency and accountability from their authors. So now, they should be willing to hold themselves to these same standards and make scientific decision making as transparent and open as possible.
2. Conclusions: Perhaps women write better manuscripts than men. And beware of men exploiting women for their manuscript writing talents.
If the results were reversed, would we conclude innate differences and that women might exploit men for their writing talents?
1. Organizations often signal political values in candidate endorsements, statements & advertisements.
@calvinisch2
@azimshariff
& I review outcomes of political action, reasons for it, and explain how recommendations to "take a stand" may be misguided:
5. W/
@JonHaidt
,
@DG_Rand
,
@GordPennycook
, Pete Ditto &
@daniel_relihan
, we are testing for socially motivated reasoning. Will we find that people evaluate information more negatively when it supports socially undesirable empirical statements vs. more neutral statements?