Here is a very interesting expose of the state of science, peer review, and the biases that infest not just social psychology, but climate science, and probably a number of other fields that follow a similar path through the education system and scientific journals.
So many examples of Lee Jussim’s hypothesis can be seen, that it’s not far fetched to believe that the insidious biases discussed here have set the majority of our scientific discovery back decades.
Without a solid peer review system, and journals that avoid being agenda driven, there is little chance any change will happen soon.
You see, Jussim himself, despite thousands of citations of his own work, is often still portrayed in his own profession as a pariah.
Left-wing bias, he said, was undermining his field. Graduate students were entering the field in order to change the world rather than discover truths1. Because of this, he said, the field was riddled with flaky research and questionable theories.
Sounds a lot like climate science as we see it today. Claire Lehmann at Quillette continues:
While the authors’ political motivations for publishing the paper were obvious, it was the lax attitude on behalf of peer reviewers – Jussim suggested – that was at the heart of the problems within social psychology. The field had become a community in which political values and moral aims were shared, leading to an asymmetry in which studies that reinforced left-wing narratives had come to be disproportionately represented in the literature. And this was not, to quote Stephen Colbert, because “reality had a liberal bias”. It was because social psychology had a liberal bias.
Climate science, too has a liberal bias. Journalism also has a liberal bias. Read the whole thing, and hope that one day, light can shine on real science once more. Social Psychology, Jussim’s own field has trouble achieving reproducibility, the cornerstone of all science.
Some months after Jussim’s presentation at the 2015 Sydney Symposium, the results of the Reproducibility Project in psychology were announced. This project found that out of 100 psychological studies, only about 30%-50% could be replicated.
That includes Lewandowski’s famous (or infamous) Lew Paper, which is used here as a prime example of a failure of science. The University of Western Australia ought to be thoroughly ashamed.