Podcasts about lee jussim

I spoke with Lee Jussim about a recent study he worked on that looked at DEI trainings. We also talked about the state of psychology and academia. Follow me: @Dangerousspeach
 Follow Lee: @PsychRabble You can read the study on DEI training here: https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/Instructing-Animosity_11.13.24.pdf Subscribe to Lee's Substack here: https://unsafescience.substack.com/

 The videos about the conference on censorship in the sciences can be found here: https://dornsife.usc.edu/cesr/censorship-in-the-sciences-interdisciplinary-perspectives/

This week as we join Lee Jussim at USC for the conference on Censorship in the Sciences we are revisiting our livestream with Lee and Catherine Salmon on the ethics Institutional Review Boards, and the role they play in censorship and the decline of academic freedoms.  Censorship in the Sciences Conference website: https://dornsife.usc.edu/cesr/censorship-in-the-sciences-interdisciplinary-perspectives/ You can watch the conference via zoom and find the full schedule here:https://drive.google.com/file/d/19YCeirdwU-izcY86aaNQ_4hm8znTaMML/view To be a part of the discussion and join our livestreams, sign up for our newsletter to be informed of all our offerings: https://ilvalues.org/ You can find more interviews of Lee here: How the Compassionate Mislead, Jordan B. Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqa7n2Aq-Bs&t=1s When Anti-Racism Becomes Racism, Jordan B. Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIpX1ME9Zvg&t=1s The Radicalization of the Academy, Stanford Classical Liberalism Initiative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kaFI8JAOvk&t=1s Lee's Substack, Unsafe Science: https://substack.com/@unsafescience  

0:00 - LA Gov. Jeff Landry: New Orleans is safest it's been 13:37 - Vegas PD Sheriff Kevin McMahill on the Vegas vs. New Orleans 31:59 - Tom Wilson, AllState CEO, with Sugar Bowl message: overcome our addition to divisiveness 50:38 - President of San Damiano College for the Trades, Dr. Kent Lasnoski, looks at the decline of the trades and how self expression can be found in creating with your hands, not just through social media. For more on San Damiano College for the Trades sandamianotrades.org 01:04:41 - Property taxes in IL 01:26:55 - Lee Jussim, professor of social psychology at Rutgers University, shares his research on the impact of DEI rhetoric. You can follow Professor Jussim on X @PsychRabble 01:40:07 - Steve Cortes, president of the League of American Workers: "immigration exists to serve the interests of the citizens of the United States" Check out Steve’s substack stevecortes.substack.com 02:01:24 - OPEN MIC FRIDAY!! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson sits down with researcher and Rutgers University Professor of Psychology Lee Jessim. They discuss the denial of Left-wing authoritarianism across academia, how Lee's research proved such authoritarianism exists, the backlash and attempted cancellations he received for his work, and how he not only survived the battle, but also garnered a promotion as a result. This episode was filmed on December 7th, 2024.  | Links | For Lee Jussim: On X https://x.com/PsychRabble?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor 

Josh is joined by Dr. Lee Jussim, a Rutgers University social psychologist, to discuss a new academic white paper from Rutgers' Social Perception Lab, "Instructing Animosity: How DEI Pedagogy Produces the Hostile Attribution Bias."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Lee Jussim is Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Rutgers University, and a founding member of both the Academic Freedom Alliance and the Society for Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences. In addition to being a renowned psychology researcher, Dr. Jussim is also an outspoken critic of cancel culture and the politicization of his discipline of social psychology, and of academia writ large. For his efforts, he has been the target of cancelation attempts. We discuss his upbringing, his research on stereotypes and other controversial topics, his brushes with cancel culture, the risks of becoming reactionary when facing cancelation attempts, and his tips for maintaining integrity and principles in the face of these pressures.

Read the full transcript here. How does psychological time differ from clock time? How does a person's perception of time relate to their personal identity? How does a person's view of their past shape how they view their future? To what extent do people differ in the degree to which they feel like a single, continuous person across time? What effects does a person's perception of time have on their assessment of injustices? Why aren't there more adversarial collaborations in academia? Is academia generally politically left-leaning? How does lack of political diversity in academia compare to (e.g.) lack of gender or economic diversity? Are liberal or progressive academics openly willing to discriminate against conservative academics when, for example, the latter have opportunities for career advancement? Is anyone in the US actually calling for legal changes around free speech laws, or are they only discussing how people ought to be socially ostracized or punished for expressing certain viewpoints? And is there a meaningful difference between legal and social punishments for those who make illegal or taboo statements? Are we in the midst of an ideological war right now? And if so, ought we to quash in-group criticism to avoid giving ammunition to our ideological enemies? Academia seems to have hemorrhaged public trust over the last few decades; so what can be done to begin restoring that trust?Anne Wilson is a professor of social psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University. Much of her research focuses on self and identity over time both for individual self and collective identities like nation, race, and gender. Her work illuminates the often-motivated malleability of our reconstructions of the past, forecasts of the future, and subjective perceptions of time itself. Her broad focus on motivated reasoning and cognitive bias has also led to more recent research on intergroup misperception, political polarization, and how speech suppression and censorship can inhibit collective bias correction. Follow her on Twitter / X at @awilson_WLU, email her at awilson@wlu.ca, or learn more about her work at her labe website: annewilsonpsychlab.com.Further reading:"Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda", by Cory J. Clark, Lee Jussim, Komi Frey, Sean T. Stevens, Musa al-Gharbi, Karl Aquino, J. Michael Bailey, Nicole Barbaro, Roy F. Baumeister, April Bleske-Rechek, David Buss, Stephen Ceci, Marco Del Giudice, Peter H. Ditto, Joseph P. Forgas, David C. Geary, Glenn Geher, Sarah Haider, Nathan Honeycutt, Hrishikesh Joshi, Anna I. Krylov, Elizabeth Loftus, Glenn Loury, Louise Lu, Michael Macy, Chris C. Martin, John McWhorter, Geoffrey Miller, Pamela Paresky, Steven Pinker, Wilfred Reilly, Catherine Salmon, Steve Stewart-Williams, Philip E. Tetlock, Wendy M. Williams, Anne E. Wilson, Bo M. Winegard, George Yancey, and William von Hippel"The Future of Memory: Remembering, Imagining, and the Brain", by Daniel L. Schacter, Donna Rose Addis, Demis Hassabis, Victoria C. Martin, R. Nathan Spreng, and Karl K. Szpunar"Autobiographical Memory and Conceptions of Self: Getting Better All the Time", by Michael Ross and Anne E. Wilson"When Slights Beget Slights: Attachment Anxiety, Subjective Time, and Intrusion of the Relational Past in the Present", by Kassandra Cortes and Anne E. Wilson"Crimes of the Past: Defensive Temporal Distancing in the Face of Past In-Group Wrongdoing", by Johanna Peetz, Gregory R. Gunn, and Anne E. Wilson"Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration", by Stephen J. Ceci1, Shulamit Kahn, and Wendy M. Williams"Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology", by Yoel Inbar and Joris LammersKindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought, by Jonathan RauchBreaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing, by Chris Bail Staff Spencer Greenberg — Host / Director Josh Castle — Producer Ryan Kessler — Audio Engineer Uri Bram — Factotum WeAmplify — Transcriptionists Miles Kestran — Marketing Music Lee Rosevere Josh Woodward Broke for Free zapsplat.com wowamusic Quiet Music for Tiny Robots Affiliates Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]

A recent report from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) claims that a sizable portion of the funds were donated by authoritarian regimes around the globe, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, China, and the UAE. The huge windfall of cited money was not recorded with the US Department of Education between 2014 and 2019. Carnegie Mellon University received the most from foreign entities in that time span at $1.47 billion while Cornell University scooped up $1.29 billion, Harvard University notched $894 million, and MIT collected $859 million, according to the report. The authors of the report, Lee Jussim and Joel Finkelstein say that it “raises the sobering possibility that international actors are using undisclosed channels to funnel large amounts of money into college campuses (including elite institutions that often have outsized influence on American culture and politics) for purposes harmful to the democratic norms of pluralism, tolerance, and freedom.”

In this week's podcast Elizabeth and Mike talk with Lee Jussim about the new "Princeton Principles for a Campus Culture of Free Inquiry."  Lee, distinguished professor of psychology at Rutgers, joined an interdisciplinary group of professors from many institutions in creating a set of principles that offer contemporary guidelines for the revitalization of higher education's core mission.  The document addresses the special and honorable duties of universities to foster freedom of thought and to actively avoid becoming political or ideological battlegrounds.  We alternate between frustration, worry, and hope in our discussion and examples of the challenges ahead for ensuring access to a truly liberal education. Podcast Notes Princeton Principles:  https://jmp.princeton.edu/princeton-principles-campus-culture-free-inquiry Chicago Statement:  https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf Kalven Report:  https://provost.uchicago.edu/reports/report-universitys-role-political-and-social-action Political Compass:  https://www.politicalcompass.org/ Society for Open Inquiry in Behavioral Science:  https://openinquirybehavio.wixsite.com/oibs Lee's Substack:  Unsafe ScienceSocial science, common sense, and skepticism applied to controversial topics, and occasional personal takes and twists.By Lee Jussim

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are going to be talking about something called the “replication crisis.” Most people will not be familiar with this since it has been happening in academia but we promise it is not only quite intriguing and full of juicy details but it also has some pretty big implications for the larger society. So what is the replication crisis? In the past 15 years or so it has been discovered that many research findings in major academic journals actually don't hold up to scrutiny. When an academic publishes a study they are required to describe their research methodology in detail. If another researcher tries to conduct the same study using the same methodology, this is an attempt at “replication.” If the replication finds the same results, this is further evidence that the original study was on to something. If they don't find the same results, it suggests that the original study may not have found the thing that it had claimed to find. In 2005, John Ioannidis, a professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine, published an article that got a lot of attention titled, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” In it he wrote that: “There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. . . this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.” Then, in 2011, there was a significant controversy over a paper by social psychologist Daryl Bem that claimed that people can have “precognition,” or ESP, and backed up this claim using the accepted methods of his field of psychology. This led many researchers to question dominant research methods, how the peer review process could fail so miserably, and whether this problem was much bigger than a few papers. In 2015, researchers published an article in the prestigious journal Science in which they detailed their attempts to reproduce 100 psychology studies. Alarmingly, they found that they were only able to successfully replicate 39 of those studies. Other similar efforts since then have also shown that many major published studies that have become accepted facts cannot be replicated and should be called into question. Over the past few years, academic fields have been grappling with the replication crisis and debating ways to strengthen the guardrails in academic research and publishing so that fewer flawed studies become accepted knowledge. On this Utterly Moderate episode we are joined by Rutgers University psychologist and friend of the show Dr. Lee Jussim to discuss all of this. Don't forget to subscribe to our FREE NEWSLETTER! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Audio: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “By Grace” by Podington Bear (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are joined by Lee Jussim, Rutgers University distinguished professor of psychology. He is here to discuss the questionable science behind microaggressions. If you are unfamiliar with the term, microaggressions are claimed to be “acts, often facially innocuous, that convey subtle animus or bias against someone in a traditionally marginalized group.” Our guest, Dr. Jussim, has written multiple excellent articles detailing the problems with microaggression research. According to Jussim, research on microaggressions is mixed, unsettled, and “in its infancy, and is most definitely not ready for applications in the real world.” Many of the claims made by progressives and academics about microaggressions have weak (and oftentimes nonexistent) empirical support. As Jussim and his research collaborator Edward Cantu note: “Many would assume that the social scientists who study and publish scholarship on [microaggressions] have already answered these questions to a degree that makes the current microaggression construct valid. But have they? The answer should inform the degree to which legal scholars and university administrators can responsibly incorporate the current microaggression construct into legal scholarship or diversity training materials.” Cantu and Jussim, like many other scholars, argue that social scientists have not adequately answered these questions: “After reviewing scholarship in which psychologists attempt to confirm the legitimacy of the [the prevailing microaggression perspective], and in which they debate the issue with dissenting psychologists, we conclude that the current operationalization of [microaggressions] in social justice discourse, legal scholarship, and education administration is significantly unwarranted.” The authors add, quite scathingly, that it appears “to be ‘methodological activism' that drives much of the debate over the legitimacy [of microaggressions]” and that the prevailing microaggression perspective “appears to be designed primarily to reinforce a critical race theory narrative about social reality.” They go on to say that, based on their analysis, “[Researchers'] claims about microaggressions are without adequate scientific basis.” If the research is this unsettled, it would be paramount that any credible news commentary or policies that flow from this research should be extremely careful in what they claim to be factual. Unfortunately, much of it fails to be: “[E]ducators, scholars, and administrators have accepted [the prevailing microaggression perspective] as valid even though psychologists have not established its scientific legitimacy. The possible reasons for this are manifold. First, academics and administrators may have a willingness to accept a claim at face value because they deem the concept to be useful—ideologically, for example—such that confirmation bias cancels vigilance. More charitably, many people outside the field of psychology simply make the mistake of assuming that peer-reviewed publication of a social science idea means the idea has by definition been thoroughly vetted scientifically. This mistake is easy to make. But psychologists have a long and embarrassing history of canonizing claims that have turned out to be false, a situation that has come to be known in psychology as ‘the replication crisis.' In short, it is a mistake to believe that, merely because an idea appears frequently in academic publications, it constitutes scientific fact. Often, it is only after withstanding decades of skeptical vetting that a new scientific claim can be established with a reasonable level of certainty.” The authors go on to argue that: “We are also concerned about how the current propagation of the [prevailing microaggression perspective], given its lack of adequate bases and therefore its limited utility, might have the primary effect of proving socially caustic—and therefore counterproductive in the quest for social justice—without countervailing benefits. Therefore, we recommend that scholars and administrators— and everyone else for that matter—generally refrain from relying on commonly propagated lists of microaggressions as reflecting anything meaningful, at least until psychologists perform the significant amount of empirical work left to be done to render the [prevailing microaggression perspective] scientifically valid and useful.” Yet many on the left nonetheless treat the prevailing microaggression paradigm as settled fact: writing about them in news stories, teaching about them in classrooms, and creating university and workplace policies around them. Here are some of the main problems that Jussim notes about microaggression research: Researchers state that several acts are microaggressions simply by claiming them to be so, without a proper scientific basis. No scientifically rigorous method exists for identifying whether many microaggressions have or have not occurred. Proof that a microaggression has occurred often largely depends on the subjective experience of the victim, leaving the researcher (a) no way to verify what took place and (b) no way to verify the intent of the perpetrator. Microaggression researchers argue that microaggressions cause harm, but in many instances this has not been empirically demonstrated. No evidence that most racial minorities consistently consider several microaggressions offensive. No demonstrated link exists between many microaggressions and racial bias on the part of the perpetrator. For some microaggressions identified by researchers, it is claimed that even though the person who committed the act did not intend harm, the microaggression itself was designed by somebody else with the intention of doing harm and/or upholding racial inequality. These researchers argue that microaggressions are a “manifestation of the aggressive goals of the dominant group, taught to unwitting actors through. . . social mechanisms.” Yet these same researchers have not provided empirical support for these claims. Many supposed microaggressions have multiple interpretations but are determined to be microaggressions by researchers because the researchers themselves privilege a particular interpretation. Some researchers claim that microaggressions occur with a frequency that they have not empirically demonstrated. Much of the microaggressions research depends on small or unrepresentative samples and/or has not been replicated—meaning the field itself is in its infancy and is nowhere near ready for real-world application. The term “microaggression” itself seems to be an example of concept creep. To the layperson, “aggression” suggests hostility and intentionality, but microaggression researchers maintain that hostility and intent are not required for something to be categorized as a microaggression. Priming people to look for microaggressions in every social interaction could plausibly (a) be more damaging to racial minorities and socially corrosive to society than the infrequent experience of microaggressions in the first place and/or (b) not achieve any meaningful reduction in racial inequality in America. Microaggression researchers frequently respond in intellectually dishonest ways to good faith critiques of their work. Jussim will help us unpack a lot of these critiques in this episode. Enjoy! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Music: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) "Reading by Lamplight" by Maarten Schellekens (Free Music Archive) "Algorithms" by Chad Crouch (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Any intellectual endeavor runs the risk of bias. Today we explore ways in which political ideology interferes with scholarship, particularly in the social sciences, with a focus on social psychology. My guest is Lee Jussim, a distinguished professor of social psychology and the leader of the Social Perception Laboratory at Rutgers University. Lee is a prolific author and studies stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination; political radicalization; and other problems that impede science and society. Lee's books include Social Perception and Social Reality, which received the American Association of Publishers award for best book in psychology, as well as the edited volumes The Social Psychology of Morality, The Politics of Social Psychology, and Research Integrity. Lee is also a founding member of the Heterodox Academy, the Academic Freedom Alliance, and the Society for Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences.

Aaron and Charles sit down with Lee Jussim to discuss the implicit association test and the replication crisis. Recommendations: The Coronavirus and the Right's Scientific Counterrevolution by Ari Schulman Scientific Regress by William Wilson Unsafe Science Substack by Lee Jussim

I spoke with Lee Jussim about his recent attempted cancellation, the state of psychology, academia and their future, and the loss of trust in institutions. Follow me: @obaidomer FollowLee: @PsychRabble You can find Lee's substack here: http://unsafescience.substack.com

In the beginning of the episode we discuss the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policy from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP): https://spsp.org/events/demonstrating-our-commitment-anti-racism-through-programming-and-events We reference a statement written by Jonathan Haidt and Lee Jussim complaining about this policy: https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/mandatory-diversity-equity-and-inclusion Finally, we quickly discuss a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2210412119 Dr. Muscatell's TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpCvLXtMqiw&ab_channel=TEDxTalks Social status and stress: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57d17e77b8a79bfa4e31641d/t/5e8e35ba40223918dabc35e5/1586378180841/Cundiff%2C+Boylan%2C+Muscatell_2020_Current+Directions.pdf Social status and inflammation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6814496/

In this week's podcast, we speak to Lee Jussim, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University who has recently started the Society of Open Inquiry in Behavioural Sciences. We discuss the nature of critical social justice, the corrosive effects of political bias, the lack of evidence for implicit bias in daily interactions, and the need to play the long game. Society for Open Inquiry in Behavioral Science: https://www.soibs.com Lee's Substack: https://substack.com/profile/14401534-lee-jussim A Model of Political Bias in Social Science Research: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1722600 Read our new mission: https://counterweightsupport.com/counterweight-manifesto/ Join us on Patreon for the latest Counterweight news & content: https://www.patreon.com/Counterweight Website: https://counterweightsupport.com Follow: https://twitter.com/Counter_Weight_ https://www.facebook.com/Counterweightsupport

Antisocial psychologists, Bo, Cory, and Lee discuss the peer review process in science--the reasons for it, the problems with it, and whether there is any compelling evidence for bias in peer review beyond their own anecdotal annoyances. And Lee announces the launch of a new journal, Journal of Open Inquiry in Behavioral Science (JOIBS), which will test a new approach to peer review with complete transparency and minimal gatekeeping. Follow Lee: https://twitter.com/PsychRabble Follow Antisocial Psychs: https://twitter.com/AsocialPsychs Learn about JOIBS: https://www.soibs.com/about-5

On part 1 of this episode of Heterodox Out Loud, we'll listen to Jonathan Haidt's edited summary of a seminal academic paper that helped lead to the founding of Heterodox Academy. The original paper, “Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science,” was published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in 2015, and was written by Jonathan Haidt, Lee Jussim, Jose Duarte, Jarret Crawford, Phil Tetlock, and Charlotta Stern. Make sure to listen to listen to part 2 where we speak with co-author Lee Jussim, Social Psychologist and Distinguished Professor at Rutgers University, about how political bias in academia can solidify into orthodoxies that undermine truth-seeking and critical inquiry. Let us know what you think! For comments and questions email communications@heterodoxacademy.org.This episode was hosted by Zach Rausch, and produced by Davies Content. Heterodox Out Loud is an ongoing series of selected pieces from heterodox: the blog in audio form with exclusive interviews. 

On part 2 of this episode of Heterodox Out Loud, we continue exploring how political bias in academia can solidify into orthodoxies that undermine truth-seeking and critical inquiry.We speak with co-author of Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science, Lee Jussim, Social Psychologist and Distinguished Professor at Rutgers University. Lee has published numerous articles and edited several books on social perception, accuracy, self-fulfilling prophecies, and stereotypes. For more from Lee, check out his Psychology Today blog called Rabble Rouser. Let us know what you think! For comments and questions email communications@heterodoxacademy.org.This episode was hosted by Zach Rausch, and produced by Davies Content. Heterodox Out Loud is an ongoing series of selected pieces from heterodox: the blog in audio form with exclusive interviews. 

In the Hold my Drink — navigating culture with a chaser of civility, and Counterweight podcast, Episode 67, we speak with Lee Jussim, Chair and Distinguished Professor in the Psychology Department at Rutgers University. Lee shares his thoughts on a growing American illiberalism, the divide in American academia and his own experiences with cancellation. He explains how our polarization is not really ideological but rather affective, which creates new challenges in our discourse. All discussed with a chaser of civility, of course, an Arnold Palmer, Michelada and a scotch on the rocks. To read more from Lee and to see what each of us is reading, visit our post American Illiberalism on the Hold my Drink website. You can also watch the conversation on the Hold my Drink YouTube page.

Social psychologist, Lee Jussim, leads the Social Perception Laboratory at Rutgers University and is Chair of the Psychology Department. His scholarly work focuses on social perception, stereotypes, and how people judge others. Jussim argues that authoritarianism exists on both sides of the political spectrum and the locus of power is increasingly being held by the extremes. He believes that countering these powerful forces takes tremendous will on the part of moderates.

I chat with Professor Lee Jussim of Rutgers University about ideological bias in science, academic freedom, social science as activism vs social science as truth seeking, and tennis.

In this episode, Xavier Bonilla has a dialogue with Lee Jussim about stereotypes, bias, and the current state of the social sciences. They talk about the scientific data on stereotypes, good and bad stereotypes, and how one understands stereotypes. They discuss some of the history of studies in social psychology and how that has changed currently. They discuss social perception and bias and give a detail description on how there is no general or universal definition of implicit bias. They talk about the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and some of the implications of this test. They also discuss some of the research on self-fulfilling prophecies along with Lee's current work in advocating for healthy viewpoint diversity within academia.  Lee Jussim is a social psychologist and the Chair of Psychology at Rutgers University.  He continues to run the Social Perception lab at Rutgers and is extremely well published over the past 30 years on social perception, stereotypes, and bias. You can find many of his scholarly papers here. You can also find his popular writing here. Twitter: @psychrabble

What a FUPing mess. Did a biologist get canceled for claiming that there are "only two biological sexes?" Was a scientific conference unfairly maligned for heresy? In this episode, we discuss the evidence for whether academia and the sciences are hostile to political conservatives and that the scientific consensus in several disciplines are being guided by political dogma. For more information about the claims we discuss, check out Lee Jussim's blogpost here: https://psychrabble.medium.com/the-threat-to-academic-freedom-from-academics-4685b1705794  Email us at FUPpod@gmail.com Facebook Discussion Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/341683697248941  Twitter: What The FUP? Podcast (@FuPpod) / Twitter

Lee Jussim is a social psychologist at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Known outside of his field as a major critic of stereotype threat, Lee is involved in online science communication and the replication crisis. A major internal critical of his own field, Lee and I discuss: - His experience after Hurricane Sandy - What he actually believes is true in social psychology - The relationship between political uniformity and results in social science

Lee Jussim joins the show to argue that we have been too soft on academia. We discuss problems in psychology and the social sciences including ideological bias, politically-motivated retractions, and more. Have things gotten better or worse over the past 10 years? Plus: is Lee bad at Twitter? Special Guest: Lee Jussim.

I spoke with Lee Jussim about research he is working on about radicalization & extremism. We also discussed conspiratorial thinking and the US election Follow me: @obaidomer
 Follow Lee: @PsychRabble Check out the research on extremism which Lee is collaborating on https://ncri.io/reports

 Check out Lee’s blog in Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser

We attempt to answer an uncommon question: Why is groupthink bad for the academy? To answer this question we are joined by Lee Jussim, a professor of social psychology at Rutgers University and author of the popular Psychology Today blog, Rabble Rouser.

Topics covered include the self-fulfilling prophecy, stereotype accuracy, the replication crisis, evolutionary psychology, use of satire in academia, intellectual diversity (heterodox academy), and academics' public engagement. This chat was originally posted on January 24, 2020 on my YouTube channel as THE SAAD TRUTH_1002: https://youtu.be/8qvelMdnENI ____________________________ Please visit my new website gadsaad.com and sign up for alerts.  If you'd like to support my efforts, please click on the "Support My Work" button.

Topics covered include the self-fulfilling prophecy, stereotype accuracy, the replication crisis, evolutionary psychology, use of satire in academia, intellectual diversity (heterodox academy), and academics' public engagement. This chat was originally posted on January 24, 2020 on my YouTube channel as THE SAAD TRUTH_1002: https://youtu.be/8qvelMdnENI ____________________________ Please visit my new website gadsaad.com and sign up for alerts.  If you'd like to support my efforts, please click on the "Support My Work" button.

I spoke with Lee Jussim about methodologies in science, issues around measurement and replication in soft sciences, publishing in journals, and the current state of discourse. 
At 30:28 Lee is discussing a diagram demonstrating a problem with publishing it can be found here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/202001/how-create-scientific-myths-without-really-trying Follow me: @obaidomer Follow Lee: @PsychRabble
 Check out Lee’s Rabble Rouser blog on Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser

Greg Ellis reads How a Rebellious Scientist Uncovered the Surprising Truth About Stereotypes, Claire Lehmann's article about Lee Jussim, the maverick social psychologist who discovered that stereotypes accurately predict academic achievement, personality and behaviour.

Greg Ellis reads How a Rebellious Scientist Uncovered the Surprising Truth About Stereotypes, Claire Lehmann's article about Lee Jussim, the maverick social psychologist who discovered that stereotypes accurately predict academic achievement, personality and behaviour.

------------------Support the channel------------ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter ------------------Follow me on--------------------- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT Dr. Lee Jussim is Distinguished Professor, Chair and Graduate Director of the Department of Psychology at Rutgers University. He also runs the Social Perception Lab there. The lab studies how people perceive, think about, and judge others. He is a leader in the fields of person perception, stereotype accuracy and bias and has been integral in the initiative for viewpoint diversity which advocates to correct the inaccuracies in the field of social psychology research. In support of the latter, he helped start Heterodox Academy, a collection of academics pushing for improvements in their academic fields. In this episode, the conversation is centered on stereotypes. We talk a little bit about the history of looking at stereotypes as inaccurate; how we can test their accuracy; if they affect people's perception of the groups they're targeted at; stereotype threats; self-fulfilling prophecies; the validity of implicit bias testing; and some issues with political bias in Social Psychology, and social constructivism. Time Links: 00:56 History of the science of stereotypes 04:47 Testing the accuracy of stereotypes 09:36 Do stereotypes affect people's perception of other groups? 14:30 People are able to evaluate others as individuals 16:26 Stereotype threat 26:09 Self-fulfilling prophecies 32:03 Implicit bias testing and anti-bias training 38:57 Is there a political bias in Social Psychology? 47:58 On social constructivism and innateness 57:21 Follow Dr. Jussim's work! -- Follow Dr. Jussim's work: Faculty page: https://tinyurl.com/ych3vbhg Psychology Today blog: https://tinyurl.com/ycn342n8 Books: https://tinyurl.com/y9hp3948 Twitter handle: @PsychRabble -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, JUNOS, SCIMED, PER HELGE HAAKSTD LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, RUI BELEZA, MIGUEL ESTRADA, ANTÓNIO CUNHA, CHANTEL GELINAS, JIM FRANK, JERRY MULLER, FRANCIS FORD, AND HANS FREDRIK SUNDE! I also leave you with the link to a recent montage video I did with the interviews I have released until the end of June 2018: https://youtu.be/efdb18WdZUo And check out my playlists on: PSYCHOLOGY: https://tinyurl.com/ybalf8km PHILOSOPHY: https://tinyurl.com/yb6a7d3p ANTHROPOLOGY: https://tinyurl.com/y8b42r7g

Lee Jussim (@PsychRabble) is a professor of Social Psychology at Rutgers University. He also identifies as a rabble rouser. His main focus in the social sciences is to get them consistently outputting high quality research. He is a firebrand and this conversation was fun as hell. Read his thoughts on psychology and the state of science at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser Support this channel: https://www.paypal.me/benjaminboyce

My guests on today’s episode are Craig Frisby and Joshua D. Phillips. Craig Frisby is co-editor, with William O’Donohue, of a new book, Cultural Competence in Applied Psychology: An Evaluation of Current Status and Future Directions.  The book takes a critical look at what professionals in the fields of clinical psychology, counseling psychology, school psychology refer to as cultural competence, also referred to as cultural sensitivity or multicultural competence. Josh Phillips is the author of a chapter in the book titled The Culture of Poverty: On Individual Choices and Infantilizing Bureaucracies. Sean Stevens, our research director, has a chapter in the book titled Cultural Competence: A Form of Stereotype Rationality. The chapter is coauthored with Lee Jussim (Rutgers), Lillian Stevens (NYU), and Stephanie Anglin (Carnegie Mellon). Craig Frisby is a professor in the college of education at the University of Missouri, and author of Meeting the Psychoeducational Needs of Minority Students. Josh Phillips's background is in rhetoric and communications, and he is author of Homeless: Narratives from the Streets. He’s a professor in the Communication Arts and Sciences department at Penn State Brandywine. Timeline 1:07 Multicultural competence is an impressionistic term 7:30 How should students be introduced to cultural competence? 12:18 Josh’s “controversial” research on poverty and homelessness 18:20 Too much attention to race without class 21:30 No attention to individual traits and human universals 27:40 The template of victims and victimizers 32:00 Evidence of student self-censoring unorthodox opinions Links * Cultural Competence in Applied Psychology (publisher site) * Joshua D. Phillips on Twitter * Craig Frisby on an Education Reforms panel on Prospects for Black America (C-Span video and transcript) * Cultural Competence: A Form of Stereotype Rationality by Sean Stevens, Lee Jussim, Lillian A. Stevens, & Stephanie M. Anglin Rating the Show Please rate this show on iTunes: * Go to the show's iTunes page and click “View in iTunes” * Click “Ratings and Reviews” which is to the right of "Details" * Next to "Click to Rate" select the stars. See the full list of episodes of Half Hour of Heterodoxy >> Transcript Here is a transcript of Episode 41.

Vincent Debierre interview Lee Jussim, a Psychology Professor at Rutgers University. Musique by CelestiC : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFpG47llQKJuZ935fPM7H7Q Audio mixing by Arnaud Demion.

Show Notes Frank Lechner is a professor of sociology at Emory University. He did his undergraduate work in sociology at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, and then moved to the U.S. for his PhD. He’s the author of four books and two edited volumes—his most recent book is The American Exception, a book about American exceptionalism that covers several aspects of American life including religion, law, sports, and media. I invited him to the show in part to have a dialogue about a piece I published about asymmetric polarization. We also discussed a first-year seminar on conservatism that Frank taught in 2016. To my knowledge, that’s the first seminar of its kind at Emory. Selected Quote I appreciate your comment about my “nonpartisan” teaching because in my day to day life, I try to depoliticize the work that I do. I don’t put my own views forward in a very strong manner. I prefer to create a space in which students can analyze arguments and evidence as honestly and as seriously as possible and to provide them with the tools and if necessary play the Devil’s advocate for whatever side needs my support and my articulation. And I think in my actual teaching I don’t take a strong political posture. More generally, I occasionally I speak up on political issues, issues on campus so people are aware I have perhaps a slightly deviant point of view, a point of view that deviates from the orthodoxy that reigns on most college campuses. But at the same time, I don’t fight any Quixotic battles against the dominant culture. Transcript This is a professional transcript but it contains some errors. Please do not quote it without verification. Chris Martin: I’m Chris Martin and this is Half Hour of Heterodoxy. This show is produced by Heterodox Academy. You can find out more about us at heterodoxacademy.org. You can also find us on Facebook under Heterodox Academy and on Twitter @hdxacademy.   My guest today is Frank Lechner. Frank is a professor of sociology at Emory University, which is where I recently finished my PhD. I took a theory course with Frank during my second year and I was very impressed with his mastery of classical, sociological theories. And Frank is known more broadly within the sociology community for his work on globalization. He’s the author of four books and two edited volumes. His most recent book is The American Exception. It’s a book about American exceptionalism that covers several aspects of American life including politics, religion, law, sports and the media.   I invited Frank to the show in part to have a dialogue about a piece I published about asymmetric polarization in America. We also discussed the first year seminar on conservatism that Frank taught in 2016. To my knowledge that’s the first seminar of its kind at Emory.   The essay about asymmetric polarization that we discuss is one that I published in late 2016. Frank disagreed with many points in the essay, which is why I invited him to the show. The essay is entitled To My Undergraduate Class on the 2016 Election. I was teaching a class on the sociology of happiness at the time and I wrote this essay to expand on what I said to my class. I published this essay on Medium and Lee Jussim published a copy of it on his blog so you may have read it on one of those places. If you haven’t read it, you can find it online by searching for “To My Undergraduate Class on the 2016 Election.”   Now, the essay doesn’t exactly represent what I said to my class.

In this episode, Chris Martin (@Chrismartin76) interviews Lee Jussim (@PsychRabble), Professor of Social Psychology at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. He conducts research on stereotypes and stereotype accuracy, and blogs at Rabble Rouser.   0:00 Lee’s work on the myth of stereotype inaccuracy 7:11 Blatant biases in conventional social research 10:26 What’s inside Lee’s upcoming books about politics & social psychology? 14:57 Is stereotype accuracy finally getting the coverage it needs? 23:20 People mostly discard stereotypes when they have individuating information 26:57 Stereotypes of liberals and conservatives—accuracy, inaccuracy, and real-world problems 33:00 It’s the prejudice, not the stereotyping **** You can learn more Lee Jussim at his website. Here’s a recent talk by Lee: Science Going Bad and How to Improve It. Books mentioned during the interview: Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy by Lee Jussim: The Politics of Social Psychology, edited by Jarret T. Crawford and Lee Jussim Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination, 2nd edition, edited by Todd D. Nelson:   Selected Quotes "I would like to think of my field of social psychology as a scientific field. I believe in science. I am enthusiastic about it. And so I am acutely pained when the field that I so strongly identify with, and want to advance, has basic failures in conduct as a normal science. And I discovered these failures when I examined the claims about stereotype inaccuracy." * "The idea of confirmation bias is people they selectively seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, and they’re more critical of information that disconfirms their beliefs. And as far as I can tell those patterns really do pervade the social sciences. And one way that manifests is—compare stereotype accuracy or inaccuracy to almost any area! If people are going to make any claim that say intrinsic motivation increases academic achievement, they’re going to have data to support the claim. They’re either going to have their own data or cite some famous review article or meta-analysis. But if they want to claim that stereotypes are inaccurate, they don’t need any data—that’s fine! You can just do that!!!" * "If people on the extreme left are over-represented—and there is good evidence for that in academia, especially in the social sciences and humanities—and if such people are most likely to unjustifiable exaggerate the views of their ideological opponents, you’re going to have academia filled with people who despise conservatives because they truly see them as fascists and Nazis. And so why is that a problem? It’s a problem intellectually for all sorts of reasons. It feeds back into the confirmation bias problem. To the extent that the social sciences address political issues and simply stigmatize people who disagree with their views then it’s going to be very difficult to have an honest conversation about zillions of politicized issues."   Other episodes of Half Hour of Heterodoxy.

In a “post-truth” era, how can we make sure to rely on credible information grounded in empirical evidence? Dr. Lee Jussim sits down with Zach and Wes to discuss the dangers of relying on unsubstantiated claims -- for example, how do we know that stereotypes really are inaccurate? -- and his journey from public housing in Brooklyn to the forefront of social psychology research.

Speakers: Dr. Florette Cohen, The College of Staten Island, CUNY; Dr. Lee Jussim, Rutgers University Title: “The New Antisemitism Israel Model: An Empirical Approach to Modern Antisemitism” Date: December 3, 2009 YIISA/ISGAP Antisemitism in Comparative Perspective Seminar Series

The Sydney Symposium At the back of a small room at Coogee Beach, Sydney, I sat watching as a psychologist I had never heard of paced the room gesticulating. His voice was loud. Over six feet tall, his presence was imposing. It was Lee Jussim. He had come to the Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology to talk about left-wing bias in social psychology. Left-wing bias, he said, was undermining his field. Graduate students were entering the field in order to change the world rather than discover truths.1 Because of this, he said, the field was riddled with flaky research and questionable theories. Jussim’s talk began with one of the most egregious examples of bias in recent years. He drew the audience’s attention to the paper: “NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax.” The study was led by Stephan Lewandowsky, and published in Psychological Science in 2013. The paper argued that those who believed that the moon landing was a hoax also believed that climate science was a fraud. The abstract … The post How a Rebellious Scientist Uncovered the Surprising Truth About Stereotypes appeared first on Quillette.