The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Social Psychologists Voted 305 to 4 for Obama Over Romney
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the British Psychological Society’s Research Digest:

Many social psychologists are impeded by their ideological aversion to evolutionary psychology
By Christian Jarrett

A new survey of beliefs held by social psychologists (335 members of the Society of Experimental Social Psychologists) has confirmed previous reports that the field is overwhelmingly populated by researchers of a left-wing, liberal bent. What’s more, David Buss and William von Hippel – the evolutionary psychologists who conducted and analysed the survey – say their findings, published open-access in Archives of Scientific Psychology, suggest that many of these social psychologists are opposed, for ideological reasons, to insights rooted in evolutionary psychology and that this is impeding them from developing a “proper science of social psychology”.

Buss and von Hippel add that compounding matters is an irony – the social psychologists’ desire to signal their ideological stance and commitment to others who share their political views, which is a manifestation of the evolved human adaptation to form coalitions. “Part of this virtue signalling entails rejecting a caricature of evolutionary psychology that no scientist actually holds,” they write.

In terms of the political bias among social psychologists, Buss and von Hippel found that 95 per cent were mostly liberal and left-wing in their views (also, among the US respondents, only 4 had voted Republican in the prior Presidential election while 305 had voted Democrat).

Quizzing the social psychologists on their views of evolutionary theory, Buss and von Hippel found that they overwhelmingly accepted the principles of Darwinian evolution and also that it applied to humans, but when it came to whether evolutionary theory applies to human psychology and behaviour, the sample was split, with many social psychologists rejecting this notion.

From Buss’s new paper:

Psychological barriers to evolutionary psychology: Ideological bias and coalitional adaptations.

Buss, David M.; von Hippel, William

… Impact Statement

In this paper, we argue that four interlocking barriers stand in the way of research scientists who seek to understand human social psychology. The first barrier is the political ideology of most social psychologists, which is typically on the left (or liberal) side of the spectrum. The second barrier is a view of human nature common among people on the political left, which is that we are born without any predilections to behave in a particular manner. According to this view, our mind is a blank slate at birth and is corrupted solely by the ills of bad environments or societies. The third barrier is a tendency to reject theories and findings that might contravene the “blank slate” view of human nature, particularly theories and findings that arise from evolutionary approaches to human behavior. The fourth barrier is a collection of evolved tendencies that prevent investigators from being dispassionate seekers of scientific truth. These include our evolved tendency to be more focused on persuasion than truth-seeking, to be concerned with the maintenance of our prestige as scientists, and to form and maintain coalitions that compete with each other. We provide initial evidence for some of these possibilities with data gathered from a survey of 335 established social psychologists. We conclude with the irony that our evolved psychology may interfere with the scientific understanding of our evolved psychology.

 
Hide 44 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Isn’t this the definition of begging the question?

  2. The one social psychology study that can be replicated…

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  3. I imagine social psychologists will read this, smile, and think, “mission accomplished!” while they give us the middle finger.

  4. Alchemy and Astrology are as legitimate sciences as Psychology .

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    As bad as psychology is, it has some science, some basis, and some achievements. Social psychology on the other hand is a few rungs below that Hong Kong practice of having a caged songbird pick an item out of a set of similar items. With the bird, at least there's a process.
    , @pilgrim007
    @donat: if I may put it in different order:


    Psychology is as a legitimate science as alchemy and astrology
  5. Are they talking about liberal views, or left-wing views? There’s no overlap.

  6. They should examine their own fear of innate human differences

    Also, purge academia

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Srsly, what's with all their heterophobia?
  7. @donut
    Alchemy and Astrology are as legitimate sciences as Psychology .

    As bad as psychology is, it has some science, some basis, and some achievements. Social psychology on the other hand is a few rungs below that Hong Kong practice of having a caged songbird pick an item out of a set of similar items. With the bird, at least there’s a process.

  8. One reason why leftists are obsessed with social factors is because their world is largely based around social competence, particularly social networking skills. You can’t get a hundred thousand people to turn out for some silly political cause without serious social networking skill. The same goes for holding together a messy coalition of the fringes, intimidating hostile conservative majorities into political silence, or getting an okay job with a useless degree. This probably leads them to assume that conservative males with a similar education level are equally social competent, and use their social competence to advance their careers at the expense of women and minorities.

    It doesn’t seem to dawn on them that most non-leftists are inferior in social networking skills and have to rely on other traits for success, like technical ability, raw IQ, low neuroticism, or high conscientiousness.

    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner

    It doesn’t seem to dawn on them that most non-leftists are inferior in social networking skills and have to rely on other traits for success, like technical ability, raw IQ, low neuroticism, or high conscientiousness.
     
    Why would they care? It doesn't help them crush their enemies so it isn't important to them.
    , @L Woods

    getting an okay job with a useless degree.
     
    It's not "useless" if they get an okay job with it, now is it?
  9. Chicago radio host Milt Rosenberg, RIP, would have been one.

    Can we name the other three?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Probably there is a serious Christian or two somewhere in flyover country...
  10. … to be concerned with the maintenance of our prestige as scientists

    Yeah, now, see here’s your problem …

  11. Wasn’t evolutionary biology/psychology going to be the big thing, until researchers started publishing data that proved the embarrassing relatives knew what they were talking about?

  12. Exhibit A: “Doctor” Christine Blasey Ford.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Blasey's a liar. Doesn't make the research projects she's signed onto invalid.

    Blasey herself has seldom if ever been the lead author on a paper. It appears she's recruited to work on studies run by others because she has more training in statistics than is the norm among psychologists.
  13. anon[161] • Disclaimer says:

    Intelligence and wisdom don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand. Thus, Nature can put out headlines crowing about how diversity is great and wonderful as science has PROVED AND THERE CAN NO LONGER BE ANY DEBATE ALLOWED…because what is science good for if we can’t put it to use browbeating others into not questioning our ideology?

    Common example from Nature:

    “The report finds that a learning environment that has students from mixed backgrounds encourages students’ exploration while reducing racial prejudice.”

    Is this about science or promoting a religion?

    “Also, ethnically diverse authorships produce better science.”

    I thought race was skin deep.

    And isn’t a more likely explanation the following:

    When choosing candidates from a single homogeneous pool to fill a ~sizable number of grad slots, the mean IQ tends to be lower because schools and governments have quotas on promoting “muh science” and must fill those slots by picking a few candidates at the lower end of the cognitive spectrum, lowering the overall quality average. But when you have multiple smart demographics (Asians, Indians, Whites) and a quota for each, you can choose the best of each, producing a more capable overall group. This does not mean in any way that mere diversity itself leads to better research, which strikes me as rank nonsense/mumbo jumbo on the face of it.

    For example, say the government wants to promote muh biomedical diversity and allocates enough funding for 20 grad students at some university. The university will obviously try to attract those who are very intelligent to fill these slots, but of course not all intelligent people are equally intelligent. The school will first fill slots with very smart people and, after running out of those very quickly, fill out the rest of the slots with less capable types. In a quota system, you can pick out a couple of the best geniuses from a couple of demographics and get a better overall result, but this shouldn’t be construed as meaning that diversity in and of itself increases research quality (or increases it in a profound way), which flies in the face of common sense…unless you believe in magic or something. South Korea gets by just fine without it in any case.

    Conclusion: this mistaken belief is a result of sampling bias.

    “As a physician and researcher, I have witnessed how inclusiveness in medical education translates into more-effective and -comprehensive research and care.”

    Anecdotal nonsense. This is similar to how feminists would crow on social media about gender discrimination (back when they could identify as females) by listing some story about being denied a grant they applied for or a faculty position and attributing it to discrimination. Then, of course, it would come out that some study had disproved this:

    “A new study finds that females are twice as likely to be hired as tenure-track faculty in the sciences as males. This finding undermines the claim that faculty hiring is biased against females. It also shows that the ever-growing bureaucracy to support diversity on college campuses is a waste of resources.”

    http://time.com/3825533/women-in-science-study/

    “In some fields, only 4% of postdocs are from ethnic groups that are widely under-represented in education. We need to gather more data on implicit bias and find out how best to attract and retain greater numbers of these students.”

    How many times have these implicit bias claims been rejected? Stereotype Threat? Debunked. Bias in favor of males? Debunked. White privilege? How is that even possible when we have Affirmative Action university admission quotas and diversity hiring requirements? Is this science or merely the veneer of science being used to promote an ideological belief?

    https://www.nature.com/articles/543623e?error=cookies_not_supported&code=06a2de15-abeb-498e-beb2-0e894cc1a276

  14. “von Hippel”, eh? Nazi bastard, obviously.

  15. >305 to 4 for Obama Over Romney

    That refers to Obama’s 2012 re-election. I am suspicious of the numbers but let’s look at the larger picture. The notion of voting for a man who made himself hundreds of millions of dollars as a vulture capitalist, buying up failing companies with leveraged loans so as to sell off the assets whilst firing the workers is hard to countenance. In contrast, Obama had negligible negative baggage and was/is very personable. What were the comparable figures for the Obama vs. McCain (+Sarah Palin, McCain’s Hail Mary VP candidate) election? At the time of the 2008 election, after 8 horrible years of Bush and his wars, an extremely conservative friend (who published in the New Criterion and was the drama critic in the Wall Street Journal for a number of years) bashfully admitted that he had voted for Obama.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The notion of voting for a man who made himself hundreds of millions of dollars as a vulture capitalist, buying up failing companies with leveraged loans so as to sell off the assets whilst firing the workers is hard to countenance.

    Because it would be so much better for the workers if you just shut the business and fired them all toute de suite.
  16. @Jason Liu
    They should examine their own fear of innate human differences

    Also, purge academia

    Srsly, what’s with all their heterophobia?

  17. @Cloud of Probable Matricide
    Chicago radio host Milt Rosenberg, RIP, would have been one.

    Can we name the other three?

    Probably there is a serious Christian or two somewhere in flyover country…

  18. @unpc downunder
    One reason why leftists are obsessed with social factors is because their world is largely based around social competence, particularly social networking skills. You can't get a hundred thousand people to turn out for some silly political cause without serious social networking skill. The same goes for holding together a messy coalition of the fringes, intimidating hostile conservative majorities into political silence, or getting an okay job with a useless degree. This probably leads them to assume that conservative males with a similar education level are equally social competent, and use their social competence to advance their careers at the expense of women and minorities.

    It doesn't seem to dawn on them that most non-leftists are inferior in social networking skills and have to rely on other traits for success, like technical ability, raw IQ, low neuroticism, or high conscientiousness.

    It doesn’t seem to dawn on them that most non-leftists are inferior in social networking skills and have to rely on other traits for success, like technical ability, raw IQ, low neuroticism, or high conscientiousness.

    Why would they care? It doesn’t help them crush their enemies so it isn’t important to them.

    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    I'm trying to explain why these people hate conservative white males in the first place. Especially the ones who are white males. My argument is their view of the world is based on different assumptions to right-wingers, and one of those assumptions is that people they dislike have high social competence which they use for immoral ends. However, even if White males wanted to stealthily suppress women and minorities in the way progressives claim, they simply don't have the social skill and competence to do so.
  19. @donut
    Alchemy and Astrology are as legitimate sciences as Psychology .

    @donat: if I may put it in different order:

    Psychology is as a legitimate science as alchemy and astrology

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Chuckles to see this on boards chock-a-block with people fixated on IQ testing. Did you fancy Arthur Jensen and Linda Gottfriedson were economists?
    , @megabar
    > Psychology is as a legitimate science as alchemy and astrology

    Do you mean ideally, or as practiced in today's world?

    Ideally, psychology would be an incredibly important and useful science.
    , @donut
    I got my paper returned covered with red pencil . LOL
  20. Conservatives don’t offer well paid career paths for social engineers.

  21. I have to confess: I voted for Obama over Romney, and I do real science (biochemistry and cell signaling), not social psychology. Now I believe that I was wrong. Too late, though.

  22. No big suprise as shrinks ( Psychologists/Psychiatrists) just happen to be the craziest assholes of all of society, plus they are all leftists. Then of course Psychology and it’s partener in crime Psychiatry being the most absurd pseudo-sciences ever concocted by mankind, the havoc they wreak upon humankind alone through the legal system/divorce courts, is beyond comprehension.

    AJM “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained us army vet, and pro Jazz performer.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Mr. Mensa, you're confounding psychology, which is a variegated academic discipline, with clinical psychology, which is one of its vocational affiliates. Only a modest minority of academic psychologists study the sort of phenomena with which clinical psychologists concern themselves.
  23. What that indicates is that social psychology had decayed into an apologetical enterprise, and is properly excluded from academic institutions. (Excluded by law in the case of state institutions). The same might be said of sociology and cultural anthropology. American history is not far behind. There is nothing that says that observational study of human behavior is not a branch of knowledge. It’s just that in our current cultural environment, it does not function as one because all results must support predetermined narratives.

  24. @pilgrim007
    @donat: if I may put it in different order:


    Psychology is as a legitimate science as alchemy and astrology

    Chuckles to see this on boards chock-a-block with people fixated on IQ testing. Did you fancy Arthur Jensen and Linda Gottfriedson were economists?

  25. @Authenticjazzman
    No big suprise as shrinks ( Psychologists/Psychiatrists) just happen to be the craziest assholes of all of society, plus they are all leftists. Then of course Psychology and it's partener in crime Psychiatry being the most absurd pseudo-sciences ever concocted by mankind, the havoc they wreak upon humankind alone through the legal system/divorce courts, is beyond comprehension.

    AJM "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained us army vet, and pro Jazz performer.

    Mr. Mensa, you’re confounding psychology, which is a variegated academic discipline, with clinical psychology, which is one of its vocational affiliates. Only a modest minority of academic psychologists study the sort of phenomena with which clinical psychologists concern themselves.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    Bullshit, I am not "confounding" or "variegrating" anything, rather my point is EVERYTHING, every concept which has roots in the "teachings" of one Sigmund Freud, all of the nonsensical theories derived from his bonkers crap , ALL OF IT is garbage.

    Plus the implied distinction between "academic" shrinks, and "clinical" shrinks is futile and non-sequitur, as the incured damage by both of them far exceeds any minute positive results achieved.

    AJM
    , @Authenticjazzman
    " I am not "confounding" or "variegrating" anything, rather my point being EVERYTHING, all of the concepts, theories, therapy, everything originating within the "teachings"of one Sigmund Freud, without exception is pure unadulterated garbage, and the damage resulting through the application of these concepts far exceed any minute positive resultings.

    AJM
  26. @pilgrim007
    @donat: if I may put it in different order:


    Psychology is as a legitimate science as alchemy and astrology

    > Psychology is as a legitimate science as alchemy and astrology

    Do you mean ideally, or as practiced in today’s world?

    Ideally, psychology would be an incredibly important and useful science.

  27. @pilgrim007
    @donat: if I may put it in different order:


    Psychology is as a legitimate science as alchemy and astrology

    I got my paper returned covered with red pencil . LOL

  28. Quizzing the social psychologists on their views of evolutionary theory, Buss and von Hippel found that they overwhelmingly accepted the principles of Darwinian evolution and also that it applied to humans, but when it came to whether evolutionary theory applies to human psychology and behaviour, the sample was split, with many social psychologists rejecting this notion.

    Who says academics are not religious?

  29. @unpc downunder
    One reason why leftists are obsessed with social factors is because their world is largely based around social competence, particularly social networking skills. You can't get a hundred thousand people to turn out for some silly political cause without serious social networking skill. The same goes for holding together a messy coalition of the fringes, intimidating hostile conservative majorities into political silence, or getting an okay job with a useless degree. This probably leads them to assume that conservative males with a similar education level are equally social competent, and use their social competence to advance their careers at the expense of women and minorities.

    It doesn't seem to dawn on them that most non-leftists are inferior in social networking skills and have to rely on other traits for success, like technical ability, raw IQ, low neuroticism, or high conscientiousness.

    getting an okay job with a useless degree.

    It’s not “useless” if they get an okay job with it, now is it?

  30. @Art Deco
    Mr. Mensa, you're confounding psychology, which is a variegated academic discipline, with clinical psychology, which is one of its vocational affiliates. Only a modest minority of academic psychologists study the sort of phenomena with which clinical psychologists concern themselves.

    Bullshit, I am not “confounding” or “variegrating” anything, rather my point is EVERYTHING, every concept which has roots in the “teachings” of one Sigmund Freud, all of the nonsensical theories derived from his bonkers crap , ALL OF IT is garbage.

    Plus the implied distinction between “academic” shrinks, and “clinical” shrinks is futile and non-sequitur, as the incured damage by both of them far exceeds any minute positive results achieved.

    AJM

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    I think the problem is that psychology, psychiatry, etc., like so much of academia, has been infected with Leftism. It's a legitimate field of study and work, but it's been corrupted.
  31. @Art Deco
    Mr. Mensa, you're confounding psychology, which is a variegated academic discipline, with clinical psychology, which is one of its vocational affiliates. Only a modest minority of academic psychologists study the sort of phenomena with which clinical psychologists concern themselves.

    ” I am not “confounding” or “variegrating” anything, rather my point being EVERYTHING, all of the concepts, theories, therapy, everything originating within the “teachings”of one Sigmund Freud, without exception is pure unadulterated garbage, and the damage resulting through the application of these concepts far exceed any minute positive resultings.

    AJM

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    all of the concepts, theories, therapy, everything originating within the “teachings”of one Sigmund Freud,

    The position of psychoanalysis within clinical practice began to decline around 1965. When I worked at a university medical center, we had one psychiatrist in that department who made a public point of his psychoanalytic training. That man was born in 1923 and died in 1996. Psychoanalysis was never more than an odd fragment within academic psychology and I think you'd have to scrounge to locate a department wherein it is taught as anything but a historical curio. The academic aspect of clinical psychology is a modest part of what you find in academic psychology departments. Again, the department I know best had neurophysiologists, experimental psychologists who did animal behavior studies, specialists in cognition, social psychologists, &c. They had of a dozen or so faculty one person who studied abnormal psychology (in addition to personality, her other specialty).
  32. @TTSSYF
    Exhibit A: "Doctor" Christine Blasey Ford.

    Blasey’s a liar. Doesn’t make the research projects she’s signed onto invalid.

    Blasey herself has seldom if ever been the lead author on a paper. It appears she’s recruited to work on studies run by others because she has more training in statistics than is the norm among psychologists.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    I didn't say the research projects she's involved with are invalid. But, in my opinion, in her demeanor, manner of speaking, and motivation, she typifies the 305 of 309 who supported Obama. Do you think any of the 4 who supported Romney (of 309) would have done what she did?
  33. @Anonymouse
    >305 to 4 for Obama Over Romney

    That refers to Obama's 2012 re-election. I am suspicious of the numbers but let's look at the larger picture. The notion of voting for a man who made himself hundreds of millions of dollars as a vulture capitalist, buying up failing companies with leveraged loans so as to sell off the assets whilst firing the workers is hard to countenance. In contrast, Obama had negligible negative baggage and was/is very personable. What were the comparable figures for the Obama vs. McCain (+Sarah Palin, McCain's Hail Mary VP candidate) election? At the time of the 2008 election, after 8 horrible years of Bush and his wars, an extremely conservative friend (who published in the New Criterion and was the drama critic in the Wall Street Journal for a number of years) bashfully admitted that he had voted for Obama.

    The notion of voting for a man who made himself hundreds of millions of dollars as a vulture capitalist, buying up failing companies with leveraged loans so as to sell off the assets whilst firing the workers is hard to countenance.

    Because it would be so much better for the workers if you just shut the business and fired them all toute de suite.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
  34. @Samuel Skinner

    It doesn’t seem to dawn on them that most non-leftists are inferior in social networking skills and have to rely on other traits for success, like technical ability, raw IQ, low neuroticism, or high conscientiousness.
     
    Why would they care? It doesn't help them crush their enemies so it isn't important to them.

    I’m trying to explain why these people hate conservative white males in the first place. Especially the ones who are white males. My argument is their view of the world is based on different assumptions to right-wingers, and one of those assumptions is that people they dislike have high social competence which they use for immoral ends. However, even if White males wanted to stealthily suppress women and minorities in the way progressives claim, they simply don’t have the social skill and competence to do so.

  35. @Authenticjazzman
    " I am not "confounding" or "variegrating" anything, rather my point being EVERYTHING, all of the concepts, theories, therapy, everything originating within the "teachings"of one Sigmund Freud, without exception is pure unadulterated garbage, and the damage resulting through the application of these concepts far exceed any minute positive resultings.

    AJM

    all of the concepts, theories, therapy, everything originating within the “teachings”of one Sigmund Freud,

    The position of psychoanalysis within clinical practice began to decline around 1965. When I worked at a university medical center, we had one psychiatrist in that department who made a public point of his psychoanalytic training. That man was born in 1923 and died in 1996. Psychoanalysis was never more than an odd fragment within academic psychology and I think you’d have to scrounge to locate a department wherein it is taught as anything but a historical curio. The academic aspect of clinical psychology is a modest part of what you find in academic psychology departments. Again, the department I know best had neurophysiologists, experimental psychologists who did animal behavior studies, specialists in cognition, social psychologists, &c. They had of a dozen or so faculty one person who studied abnormal psychology (in addition to personality, her other specialty).

  36. @Art Deco
    Blasey's a liar. Doesn't make the research projects she's signed onto invalid.

    Blasey herself has seldom if ever been the lead author on a paper. It appears she's recruited to work on studies run by others because she has more training in statistics than is the norm among psychologists.

    I didn’t say the research projects she’s involved with are invalid. But, in my opinion, in her demeanor, manner of speaking, and motivation, she typifies the 305 of 309 who supported Obama. Do you think any of the 4 who supported Romney (of 309) would have done what she did?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    No. However, I doubt many social psychologists would have done what she did. Most people are risk averse and only an odd minority are willing to lie their tuchus off in front of a nine-digit audience. (N.B., Blasey at the beginning of her career was a child development specialist, not a social psychologist).


    What was disconcerting about l'affaire Blasey is the readiness of partisan Democrats and NeverTrump twits to credit what she said. You'd think someone bringing a complaint 36 years after the fact, someone whose account was undermined by each of the four people she named as being present, someone whose account had incredible gaps, someone who could produce no evidence she ever met the accused, someone whose residence and school enrollments were such that there was no particular reason to presume she ever knew the accused, someone whose name and initials are absent from the accused's period appointment calendar, someone who provably lied about a number of ancillary matters would encounter some skepticism from people generally. In discussions I've had in fora like this, I've yet to encounter a single identifiable Democrat willing to say plainly that her story was sh!t. Pretty amusing that most Democrats assume they're Daniel Dennett's Brights.

  37. @Authenticjazzman
    Bullshit, I am not "confounding" or "variegrating" anything, rather my point is EVERYTHING, every concept which has roots in the "teachings" of one Sigmund Freud, all of the nonsensical theories derived from his bonkers crap , ALL OF IT is garbage.

    Plus the implied distinction between "academic" shrinks, and "clinical" shrinks is futile and non-sequitur, as the incured damage by both of them far exceeds any minute positive results achieved.

    AJM

    I think the problem is that psychology, psychiatry, etc., like so much of academia, has been infected with Leftism. It’s a legitimate field of study and work, but it’s been corrupted.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " It's a legitimate field of study and work"

    NO it is not a "Legitimate" field of anything, the basic error being in the comparison of one human mind to another in order to forecast behavior and reaction.
    This is, and has always been an impossible and rediculous undertaking as each and every human , intelligent or moronic, is unique, and the pseudo-scientific approach applied by the world of psychology says that one persons future behavior can be determined through the observation of the behavior of another, or others, this being the reason why so many criminal offenders turn out to be "repeat" offenders in spite of psychological "expertises" to the contrary : The dumb-ass shrinks assume that random human behavior can be categorized and packaged into groupings, therefore their totally erroneous "catalogs" of human psychological disorders.

    AJM

    PS My sister took psych courses for three years at Mich State, and woke up one day laughing at the absurdity of their premises, thus quitting.
  38. @TTSSYF
    I didn't say the research projects she's involved with are invalid. But, in my opinion, in her demeanor, manner of speaking, and motivation, she typifies the 305 of 309 who supported Obama. Do you think any of the 4 who supported Romney (of 309) would have done what she did?

    No. However, I doubt many social psychologists would have done what she did. Most people are risk averse and only an odd minority are willing to lie their tuchus off in front of a nine-digit audience. (N.B., Blasey at the beginning of her career was a child development specialist, not a social psychologist).

    What was disconcerting about l’affaire Blasey is the readiness of partisan Democrats and NeverTrump twits to credit what she said. You’d think someone bringing a complaint 36 years after the fact, someone whose account was undermined by each of the four people she named as being present, someone whose account had incredible gaps, someone who could produce no evidence she ever met the accused, someone whose residence and school enrollments were such that there was no particular reason to presume she ever knew the accused, someone whose name and initials are absent from the accused’s period appointment calendar, someone who provably lied about a number of ancillary matters would encounter some skepticism from people generally. In discussions I’ve had in fora like this, I’ve yet to encounter a single identifiable Democrat willing to say plainly that her story was sh!t. Pretty amusing that most Democrats assume they’re Daniel Dennett’s Brights.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    All I was really getting at is that, in my opinion, she’s a typical Leftie psychologist of the type who voted for Obama in record numbers. It makes no difference to me as to whether any of them would have done what she did as far as publicly testifying (most people wouldn’t, regardless of their profession, and she supposedly didn’t want to, either). No doubt most, if not all, of the 305 of 309 were cheering her efforts from their living rooms.
  39. @Art Deco
    No. However, I doubt many social psychologists would have done what she did. Most people are risk averse and only an odd minority are willing to lie their tuchus off in front of a nine-digit audience. (N.B., Blasey at the beginning of her career was a child development specialist, not a social psychologist).


    What was disconcerting about l'affaire Blasey is the readiness of partisan Democrats and NeverTrump twits to credit what she said. You'd think someone bringing a complaint 36 years after the fact, someone whose account was undermined by each of the four people she named as being present, someone whose account had incredible gaps, someone who could produce no evidence she ever met the accused, someone whose residence and school enrollments were such that there was no particular reason to presume she ever knew the accused, someone whose name and initials are absent from the accused's period appointment calendar, someone who provably lied about a number of ancillary matters would encounter some skepticism from people generally. In discussions I've had in fora like this, I've yet to encounter a single identifiable Democrat willing to say plainly that her story was sh!t. Pretty amusing that most Democrats assume they're Daniel Dennett's Brights.

    All I was really getting at is that, in my opinion, she’s a typical Leftie psychologist of the type who voted for Obama in record numbers. It makes no difference to me as to whether any of them would have done what she did as far as publicly testifying (most people wouldn’t, regardless of their profession, and she supposedly didn’t want to, either). No doubt most, if not all, of the 305 of 309 were cheering her efforts from their living rooms.

  40. @TTSSYF
    I think the problem is that psychology, psychiatry, etc., like so much of academia, has been infected with Leftism. It's a legitimate field of study and work, but it's been corrupted.

    ” It’s a legitimate field of study and work”

    NO it is not a “Legitimate” field of anything, the basic error being in the comparison of one human mind to another in order to forecast behavior and reaction.
    This is, and has always been an impossible and rediculous undertaking as each and every human , intelligent or moronic, is unique, and the pseudo-scientific approach applied by the world of psychology says that one persons future behavior can be determined through the observation of the behavior of another, or others, this being the reason why so many criminal offenders turn out to be “repeat” offenders in spite of psychological “expertises” to the contrary : The dumb-ass shrinks assume that random human behavior can be categorized and packaged into groupings, therefore their totally erroneous “catalogs” of human psychological disorders.

    AJM

    PS My sister took psych courses for three years at Mich State, and woke up one day laughing at the absurdity of their premises, thus quitting.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    Many a person has accumulated great wealth by making broad generalizations about human behavior. Anything can be taken to a ridiculous extreme. You’re free to hold a contrary opinion from mine...and I won’t tell you, as you’ve me, that you can’t.
    , @Art Deco
    https://www.google.com/search?q=goodyear+blimp&client=firefox-b-1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKxZPXtoTfAhViplkKHWkmD-UQ_AUIDygC&biw=1205&bih=671#imgrc=UZuOSQmTavO9sM:

    I think I found your photograph.
  41. @Authenticjazzman
    " It's a legitimate field of study and work"

    NO it is not a "Legitimate" field of anything, the basic error being in the comparison of one human mind to another in order to forecast behavior and reaction.
    This is, and has always been an impossible and rediculous undertaking as each and every human , intelligent or moronic, is unique, and the pseudo-scientific approach applied by the world of psychology says that one persons future behavior can be determined through the observation of the behavior of another, or others, this being the reason why so many criminal offenders turn out to be "repeat" offenders in spite of psychological "expertises" to the contrary : The dumb-ass shrinks assume that random human behavior can be categorized and packaged into groupings, therefore their totally erroneous "catalogs" of human psychological disorders.

    AJM

    PS My sister took psych courses for three years at Mich State, and woke up one day laughing at the absurdity of their premises, thus quitting.

    Many a person has accumulated great wealth by making broad generalizations about human behavior. Anything can be taken to a ridiculous extreme. You’re free to hold a contrary opinion from mine…and I won’t tell you, as you’ve me, that you can’t.

  42. @Authenticjazzman
    " It's a legitimate field of study and work"

    NO it is not a "Legitimate" field of anything, the basic error being in the comparison of one human mind to another in order to forecast behavior and reaction.
    This is, and has always been an impossible and rediculous undertaking as each and every human , intelligent or moronic, is unique, and the pseudo-scientific approach applied by the world of psychology says that one persons future behavior can be determined through the observation of the behavior of another, or others, this being the reason why so many criminal offenders turn out to be "repeat" offenders in spite of psychological "expertises" to the contrary : The dumb-ass shrinks assume that random human behavior can be categorized and packaged into groupings, therefore their totally erroneous "catalogs" of human psychological disorders.

    AJM

    PS My sister took psych courses for three years at Mich State, and woke up one day laughing at the absurdity of their premises, thus quitting.
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    Damn just how did you know that I have been waiting all of these years for such a marvelous collection of purty blimp pictures.

    I thank you from the bottom of my heart for fulfilling this fervent wish, which transmits me back to my childhood days when they would call me : Blimp head.

    AJM
  43. @Art Deco
    https://www.google.com/search?q=goodyear+blimp&client=firefox-b-1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKxZPXtoTfAhViplkKHWkmD-UQ_AUIDygC&biw=1205&bih=671#imgrc=UZuOSQmTavO9sM:

    I think I found your photograph.

    Damn just how did you know that I have been waiting all of these years for such a marvelous collection of purty blimp pictures.

    I thank you from the bottom of my heart for fulfilling this fervent wish, which transmits me back to my childhood days when they would call me : Blimp head.

    AJM

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS